« Topics
1234...261262263264
DTV1,178 posts since 27 Feb 2012
Meridian (South) South Today
I think the BBC could probably 'get away' with moving the news channel online if there were more regular news updates on BBC Two, and potentially BBC One.


Or they could not do it as it won't save any money. Moving BBC Three online only saved money because they were saving money in terms of imports and a cut back in programming. If you move a rolling news channel online you still have to produce the rolling news channel, the only money you'd save are broadcasting costs.

The only reason the BBC finds taking the axe to the News Channel tree easy is because there's little opposition to it - commercial opponents (Sky) want the News Channel closed, the government are happy for it to close because they want to stay in the Dark Lord's good books, the papers generally hate the BBC and particularly the News department and most of the public are in different to it. It all of course ignores the fact that the News Channel carries out a valuable public service as well as the fact that it is the 2nd most cost effective BBC channel after CBeebies.

The BBC can save money on the News Channel - for instance they could take some penicillin and get rid of the 2 hour block in the morning that could be replaced by rolling news (or a Test Card as even that would be beneficial) on both BBC News and BBC Two - it would be better, could not get less viewers than the slot currently does and would better suit the channel's remit. But hey that's just an idea and ultimately just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, because thanks to the unique combination of a slightly corrupt government and a BBC that has had about 63 vasectomies - within a decade the BBC News Channel (and the BBC as a whole) will be little more than an exhibit in the 'Public Sector institutions that have been closed down, privatised or just roundly f*cked by the Conservatives (and New Labour) Exhibition 2026'.
6
newsman1482 posts since 21 Jan 2013
UTV Newsline

The only reason the BBC finds taking the axe to the News Channel tree easy is because there's little opposition to it - commercial opponents (Sky) want the News Channel closed, the government are happy for it to close because they want to stay in the Dark Lord 's good books, the papers generally hate the BBC and particularly the News department and most of the public are in different to it.


The News of the World phone-hacking scandal means that the Tories being friends with the Dark Lord is a thing of the past. I don't think that the public's memory is that short.
DTV1,178 posts since 27 Feb 2012
Meridian (South) South Today

The only reason the BBC finds taking the axe to the News Channel tree easy is because there's little opposition to it - commercial opponents (Sky) want the News Channel closed, the government are happy for it to close because they want to stay in the Dark Lord 's good books, the papers generally hate the BBC and particularly the News department and most of the public are in different to it.


The News of the World phone-hacking scandal means that the Tories being friends with the Dark Lord is a thing of the past. I don't think that the public's memory is that short.


Really, is that why Rupert Murdoch had two 'secret' meetings with George Osborne in the weeks preceding the announcement that the provision of free license fees for the elderly was to be transferred to the BBC's coffers rather than the government's earlier this year and seem just as eager to please The Sun as ever. Phone hacking changed nothing in the way of politician's relationships with the Dark Lord, Salmond and the Conservatives didn't really distance themselves from Murdoch post-2011 and it has by-and-large has had a negative effect on the BBC particularly in regards to the DCMS, though I wouldn't be surprised if Salmond's Anti-BBC rhetoric during the indie campaign and decision to replace BBC Scotland with the SBS thus cutting BBC income by almost 10% was influenced by the Dark Lord.

Politicians love to suck up to the Dark Lord in their own interests - in Blair and Cameron's case it's simply to get favourable coverage from The Sun and with Salmond it was not secret he was trying to get The Scottish Sun to support 'Yes'. And in return for favourable coverage they give the Dark Lord concessions - under Blair the BBC lost its independence, under Cameron the BBC is set to lose its very existence. It's corruption plain and simple, but who cares.

Of course they don't just do it to the Dark Lord - as 'One Nation' as Cameron pretends to be (other than the hardline Thatcherite he is, or Osborne has dragged him to be) he's never wanted to upset Mugabe, and Blair also tried to get him on side - though the Heil was never going to support New Labour no matter how Thatcherite Blair made them. Dirty Des was also another target of Cameron and Blair's media strategy though ultimately both of his 'newspapers' are now pro-UKIP. The Torygraph, Mirror and Grauniad are all ignored by the leaders for being staunchly Conservative, staunchly Labour and and complex mix of left-wingers and bourgeois 'I support welfare but not if it raises my taxes' Blairites, respectively. Ultimately this always causes the BBC a lot of harm as the area that the Dark Lord and Mugabe agree on most is their detestation of the BBC and their desire to own the profitable chunks.

Aside from corruption, the other reason the Conservatives hate the BBC is purely ideological. This government hates the public sector (seemingly even more so than Thatcher if the privatisation of education is anything to go by) and thus hates to see any public sector institution do well - hence why they are running the NHS into the ground. As the only element of the BBC they currently have control over is funding (though Whittingdale has announced that the government will appoint the replacement for the BBC Trust) they can slash that and let the BBC run itself into the ground, partially because they know the BBC is terrible in a crisis and also because there has never been such a gap between the management and production sides of the BBC. This means that the cuts fall totally randomly because management is now made up entirely of career executives who've never stood in a TV studio let alone have any idea about producing a programme.

BBC Management and the cuts are a lot like Osborne and welfare cuts as they are done purely on a 'making the sums add up' basis rather than what is best for anyone. Half the executives at the BBC couldn't give a sh*t about the future of the organisation and there are a growing number of serious rumours that some of the executives are actually 'plants' there to undermine the future of the BBC - why should the executives care they'll just move to another channel to further their careers. You can see the contempt for the production side in the fact that the Head of News could next be the Head of Entertainment - they don't need people who know about the department, just somebody who'll balance the books. The BBC's three biggest enemies are the Dark Lord, the government and their own executives and the three of them are a lot closer than they'd like people to know. And that is why the BBC (particularly News) is screwed.

P.S. sorry for the rant/essay.
3
newsman1482 posts since 21 Jan 2013
UTV Newsline

The only reason the BBC finds taking the axe to the News Channel tree easy is because there's little opposition to it - commercial opponents (Sky) want the News Channel closed, the government are happy for it to close because they want to stay in the Dark Lord 's good books, the papers generally hate the BBC and particularly the News department and most of the public are in different to it.


The News of the World phone-hacking scandal means that the Tories being friends with the Dark Lord is a thing of the past. I don't think that the public's memory is that short.


Really, is that why Rupert Murdoch had two 'secret' meetings with George Osborne in the weeks preceding the announcement that the provision of free license fees for the elderly was to be transferred to the BBC's coffers rather than the government's earlier this year and seem just as eager to please The Sun as ever. Phone hacking changed nothing in the way of politician's relationships with the Dark Lord, Salmond and the Conservatives didn't really distance themselves from Murdoch post-2011 and it has by-and-large has had a negative effect on the BBC particularly in regards to the DCMS, though I wouldn't be surprised if Salmond's Anti-BBC rhetoric during the indie campaign and decision to replace BBC Scotland with the SBS thus cutting BBC income by almost 10% was influenced by the Dark Lord.

Politicians love to suck up to the Dark Lord in their own interests - in Blair and Cameron's case it's simply to get favourable coverage from The Sun and with Salmond it was not secret he was trying to get The Scottish Sun to support 'Yes'. And in return for favourable coverage they give the Dark Lord concessions - under Blair the BBC lost its independence, under Cameron the BBC is set to lose its very existence. It's corruption plain and simple, but who cares.

Of course they don't just do it to the Dark Lord - as 'One Nation' as Cameron pretends to be (other than the hardline Thatcherite he is, or Osborne has dragged him to be) he's never wanted to upset Mugabe, and Blair also tried to get him on side - though the Heil was never going to support New Labour no matter how Thatcherite Blair made them. Dirty Des was also another target of Cameron and Blair's media strategy though ultimately both of his 'newspapers' are now pro-UKIP. The Torygraph, Mirror and Grauniad are all ignored by the leaders for being staunchly Conservative, staunchly Labour and and complex mix of left-wingers and bourgeois 'I support welfare but not if it raises my taxes' Blairites, respectively. Ultimately this always causes the BBC a lot of harm as the area that the Dark Lord and Mugabe agree on most is their detestation of the BBC and their desire to own the profitable chunks.

Aside from corruption, the other reason the Conservatives hate the BBC is purely ideological. This government hates the public sector (seemingly even more so than Thatcher if the privatisation of education is anything to go by) and thus hates to see any public sector institution do well - hence why they are running the NHS into the ground. As the only element of the BBC they currently have control over is funding (though Whittingdale has announced that the government will appoint the replacement for the BBC Trust) they can slash that and let the BBC run itself into the ground, partially because they know the BBC is terrible in a crisis and also because there has never been such a gap between the management and production sides of the BBC. This means that the cuts fall totally randomly because management is now made up entirely of career executives who've never stood in a TV studio let alone have any idea about producing a programme.

BBC Management and the cuts are a lot like Osborne and welfare cuts as they are done purely on a 'making the sums add up' basis rather than what is best for anyone. Half the executives at the BBC couldn't give a sh*t about the future of the organisation and there are a growing number of serious rumours that some of the executives are actually 'plants' there to undermine the future of the BBC - why should the executives care they'll just move to another channel to further their careers. You can see the contempt for the production side in the fact that the Head of News could next be the Head of Entertainment - they don't need people who know about the department, just somebody who'll balance the books. The BBC's three biggest enemies are the Dark Lord, the government and their own executives and the three of them are a lot closer than they'd like people to know. And that is why the BBC (particularly News) is screwed.

P.S. sorry for the rant/essay.


The NHS and the BBC being run into the ground?!

Ah, gimme a break(!)

You see, I'm no fan of conspiracy theories.

Not all people who criticise the BBC are supporters of the Dark Lord, you know. After all, I don't think that anyone could accuse Tom Bradby of being a friend of the Dark Lord.

As for Cameron "not wanting to upset Mugabe", as you allege, what can Cameron do about that?! Sure, the governments of the countries that surround Zimbabwe (except Botswana) support Mugabe.
DTV1,178 posts since 27 Feb 2012
Meridian (South) South Today
As for Cameron "not wanting to upset Mugabe", as you allege, what can Cameron do about that?! Sure, the governments of the countries that surround Zimbabwe (except Botswana) support Mugabe.


Mugabe is the nickname of Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, due to him hanging on far longer than he should and his hatred of all opposition to his editorial standpoint within the Mail.

As for conspiracy theories - the NHS is being run into the ground - constant Ministerial (rather than expert) led reforms since the late 80s have led to the NHS being poorly organised, with profitable areas now being run by private companies; staff shortages are getting worse, especially with May's new deporting economic immigrants who don't earn high amounts policy; thanks to New Labour's love of PFI deals the NHS and government are in millions, if not billions, of pounds in debt concerning the building of new hospitals; staff are being stretched further than ever and in reality having their salaries cut. A similar process is beginning in regards to the BBC.

Also it isn't a conspiracy theory to allege corruption when it is happening - in the last parliament 64 Conservative MPs, 14 Labour MPs and 7 Lib Dem MPs had links to private health care companies - including the Prime Minister and Health Secretary (http://www.unitetheunion.org/uploaded/documents/FINAL%20MP%20Dossier%2028%20Nov%201411-20887.pdf http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/compilation-of-parliamentary-financial.html). If you can't recognise that having links to private healthcare companies would affect policy regarding the NHS then there's no point in me highlighting how commercial opponents of the BBC and BBC News who have a cosy relationship with members of the cabinet is going to be of detriment to the BBC, as you clearly are happy to ignore it.

Also I didn't suggest all BBC opponents are friends of the Dark Lord just some, it just so happens that those some are in high office.

Anyway this is the a thread about the News Channel's presentation so I shan't continue.
2
Skygeek736 posts since 5 Feb 2014
London London
Would it be too much to ask to refer to people by their actual names, rather than all pretending we work for Private Eye?

It's just a bit clique-y, not to mention (as demonstrated above) confusing.

But there'd be no TVF without people with already-tenuous connections to broadcast media thinking those connections are at least 20% less-tenuous than they actually are.


To be fair, though, for those of us who actually DO work in the industry, that figure only shrinks to 15%! Very Happy
I sometimes speak ABOUT my employer, although not FOR them.
2
newsman1482 posts since 21 Jan 2013
UTV Newsline
As for Cameron "not wanting to upset Mugabe", as you allege, what can Cameron do about that?! Sure, the governments of the countries that surround Zimbabwe (except Botswana) support Mugabe.


Mugabe is the nickname of Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, due to him hanging on far longer than he should and his hatred of all opposition to his editorial standpoint within the Mail.

And it so happens that Daily Mail and General Trust owns 20% of ITN.
Markymark4,561 posts since 13 Dec 2004
Meridian (North) South Today
Some weird shots from Brussels this evening, at around 17:30 there was a close up shot of some random woman talking to the police, and then making a phone call. It carried on for a couple of minutes. Err why ? Same pictures on Sky and the Beeb so I presume probably from one of the Belgian broadcasters. (No she didn't seem to be a reporter)
No further posts are being accepted for this topic