BBC coverage to be given the "Olympics treatment"

[James Bolivar]

Most people who've spent a long time abroad and had to put up with non-BBC national broadcasting corporations usually come to realise that it genuinely is the best on the planet.

[LondonTom]

Lol m8, that's why I said discreetly, I too wouldn't want to notice them running around the place.

Edited February 1, 2013 by LondonTom

[MEGABOWL]

No, no, no, no, no... I dont want cameras stuck in my face all round the festival. They can fuck off with their TV coverage and leave us alone

[Alcatraz]

I thought I was safe dancing away to Hercules and Love Affair on West Holts last time but that wound up on the Beeb and YouTube so I agree with this

[budvar]

Wasn't particularly expecting this thread to come a debate on the entire content of the BBC.

For me the debate's quite simple; would I like a tiny proportion of my licence fee to be spent on Glasto coverage? Yes.

Given that, do I want them to do the best coverage possible? Yes.

If for nothing else it's great to know that these moments are captured for posterity.

Even if you don't watch a second of coverage and strongly dislike the BBC I'm not sure its coverage of the festival can have enough of a negative impact on you to want to deprive those at home (a decent number of whom will have had the pleasure of attending in the past) of enjoying at least an aspect of the festival.

But maybe that's just me.

[MEGABOWL]

The BBC is something that is respected around the world and should be cherished. The BBC has to try and cater to everyone, and on the whole it does an excellent job. It might just be a problem you have with media in general, because very few do it better, or even on a par with the BBC. Try living in pretty much any other country in the world. In comparison to their catastrophes the quality of our television and radio is golden. We're lucky to have it.

[MEGABOWL]

Yeah god, Kool and the Gang was about 20 seconds of the gang and 40 minutes of me dancing. Fuckers

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

No - it is like being forced to go to Glastonbury and finding that there is abso-fucking-lutely nothing there you want to watch and having to pay extra to go to Download and see Slipknot and Rammstein. Even the BBC's music taste is completely dominated by the NME hegemony: dreary Indie music good, raucous Metal bad

[mrtourette]

I thank my lucky stars every day for the privilege of being able to pay for something I don't use and don't watch.

American TV is OK - certainly the cable networks are fine, the broadcasters have way too many ads.

[James Bolivar]

ahhh, the wonderful idea that national services are only justified if each contributor is getting everything back that they put in ... the very idea that has dropped this country in the shit, that is causing disabled people to have their benefits cut and to be forced into work without doctors assessing their ability to work, that makes fair taxation impossible, which makes changing this fucked up world into anything better impossible.

Yeah, lets go with that idea some more. It's bound to sort everything out eventually.

[eFestivals]

We're not talking about the Health Service here, we're talking about the state run broadcaster; so the comparison is a tad disingenuous.

Oh, so in your book it can never be right for there to be any national service run by govt unless you personally approve of it and benefit from it.

I can't deduce anything else from your comparison with the NHS; I never mentioned the NHS.

It's always good to see someone consider others, and not take a purely selfish view of things.

Edited February 1, 2013 by eFestivals

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

We're not talking about the Health Service here, we're talking about the state run broadcaster; so the comparison is a tad disingenuous. Nobody is going to die if they don't get to watch EastEnders or listen to Kylie records without ads for home insurance. I fully support the state provision of essential services, but that should not extend to entertainment - if nothing else it distorts the market, resulting in even the commercial broadcasters being unrepresentative, but far worse it is just another example of the encroachment of Big Government into aspects of our lives where they have no place being.

To make matters worse, the BBC fails to serve its constituency. If the BBC was truly unbiased, then at least as far as news services go they would serve some purpose in countering the agenda of rich media moguls, but they are about as unbiased as a Party Whip.The head of the BBC is a political appointee, they have an unashamed liberal and metropolitan agenda and yet they are meant to be non-partisan to justify the tax virtually all citizens pay. The echelons of the BBC are filled with Oxbridge Liberal Arts graduates which is why you get actual prime-time news reports about crap like the Booker Prize and why they are continuous ramming dramatizations of Victorian novels down our throats.

If we have to have a Public Service Broadcaster and, in principle, I think it a good thing, then it should retreat to the Reithian Values of Educate, Inform and, very much lastly, Entertain. Lord Reith only saw Entertainment as a means to delivering his other principles, not a fitting end in itself for the state broadcaster. 90 years on there's plenty of people fighting to entertain us and, generally, they do it better than Auntie ever could.

Edited February 1, 2013 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[James Bolivar]

That's completely untrue, the BBC recently devoted evenings to Black Sabbath and Ozzie, Ac/Dc and Iron Maiden, and that's just stuff on tv that I've come across.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Oh, they do a couple of specials to keep us proles happy? Ta.

Pretty much anywhere in the US - a country with a similar pop-musical heritage to our own - turn on the radio and you will find multiple rock stations. BBC radio has no rock stations, they don't even have a daily rock show. When rock is mentioned it is almost disparagingly. Yet despite this rock music still sells, there is an audience and that audience pays it's broadcaster tax.

[Guest]

Oh, they do a couple of specials to keep us proles happy? Ta.

Pretty much anywhere in the US - a country with a similar pop-musical heritage to our own - turn on the radio and you will find multiple rock stations. BBC radio has no rock stations, they don't even have a daily rock show. When rock is mentioned it is almost disparagingly. Yet despite this rock music still sells, there is an audience and that audience pays it's broadcaster tax.

[James Bolivar]

Oh, so in your book it can never be right for there to be any national service run by govt unless you personally approve of it and benefit from it.

[James Bolivar]

there are dozens of rock stations. Why do you feel the need for the BBC to cater for a genre that is more than adequately dealt with?

[James Bolivar]

However they do two rock shows a week, with several documentaries and specials spread throughout the stations, and spread throughout the playlists.. While Rock music does sell, it doesn't sell anywhere near the same amount as pop.

[Chimps in Balaclavas]

Like Big Brother? YAY !!!

They should leave it at the main stages, the rest of the festival can only be experienced really anyway, just look at when they do go off to the "naughty corner" it's always so cringe worthy and involves sending their latest hot shot tv presenter to be really whacky! Your never going translate the rest of the festival to TV well (unless its a documentary style over a few years like the Julien Temple stuff, but thats not really coverage that can be done for the weekend.)

That said everything else the BBC does is fine by me, even the main stage glasto coverage is the best by miles if anyone has seen Sky/ITV attempts to cover festivals you know it is. Apart from big expensive HBO drama's (some of which get shown on BBC anyway... ) and sport, there isn't alot else that anyone puts on that I actually want to watch (The odd american comedy show like comunity, or peep show/inbetweens on c4). The license fee is well worth it, even if you end up with occasional shite like strictly or Nick Grimshaw on radio 1.

[eFestivals]

... but against state-run bookmakers and off-licences; both of which exist abroad.

state run bookies used to exist here too (the Tote, which is now private), and guess what? Bookies everywhere took the piss less when the tote was public.

Not only that, you paid less in taxes because of it - the only people to lose out were private bookies, which harmed absolutely no one.

It was a terrible thing, publicly-owned bookies. Only Stalin could give it any justification.

Do you not draw a line anywhere? Are you completely committed to a command economy?

I draw the line somewhere, yes. But done by a consideration is is related to more than just me personally. Just because I might not get a personal benefit doesn't mean that I consider something a worthless service of no benefit to the people of the country.

And no, I'm not committed to a command economy. I'm merely committed against the economy that we have built on rip-offs and scams, which is a dreadful and cruel thing for me to endorse, I know.

They have yet to work and every attempt seems to have resulted in misery for the majority.

Yeah, the Tote resulted in misery for the majority, what with the everyone paying lower taxes and those people betting getting better deals. The misery was overwhelming.

Likewise with the BBC. I cry each time the TV is turned on, what with the BBC giving a massive amount more for my money than Sky gives it's customers with far more money. The misery of the great deal the BBC gives makes me cry all day long.

You mentioned "national services" so picked the least contentious example, the one most people would unequivocally support; at least in concept if not execution.

you picked the one that presents you in the best light, because if you believe in universal healthcare you must be a good guy, right? Cos after all, there's no better ideas, such as expanding that good idea into other things where the same universal benefits exist for all in the country and at unbeatable value. It's a terrible thing to give people something for unbeatable value.

But is it a selfish view? Is it more selfish than yours? You like the BBC and want me to help you pay for it, but why should I? Your argument has some validity when applied to the school system as I see some social benefit accruing from an educational provision and the need to share the burden. I see no benefit to having the BBC that could not be immediately met by commercial or subscription services. To convince me that this tax and this extension of state are good things you just have to show me the need and how it would not be met commerce.

you see a benefit in paying twice as much for the same thing? You must give me your address, you're just the sort of customer that my other business, Ripping-Off-The-People-With-Poor-Maths Ltd, is looking for.

If I were you I'd get US TV piped into your home, where the amazing variety of every form of bland and raving-right-wing is yours at every moment. It's disgusting that anyone might want something informed and diverse and unbiased.

[James Bolivar]

{on the Health Service}

you picked the one that presents you in the best light, because if you believe in universal healthcare you must be a good guy, right? Cos after all, there's no better ideas, such as expanding that good idea into other things where the same universal benefits exist for all in the country and at unbeatable value. It's a terrible thing to give people something for unbeatable value.

you see a benefit in paying twice as much for the same thing? You must give me your address, you're just the sort of customer that my other business, Ripping-Off-The-People-With-Poor-Maths Ltd, is looking for.

[eFestivals]

I am, in part, opposed to the state-colonization of every aspect of our lives because the state is inherently bureaucratic, as Weber commented a century ago, and all bureaucracies are ultimately self-serving.

and the alternative of businesses aren't?

This runs counter to your notion of "unbeatable value for all".

that's certainly what the NHS gives us against the private sector alternative.

Likewise the effect of the BBC is much more than just what it broadcasts. It creates a quality threshold that others have to aspire towards, rather than them always going for lowest common denominator stuff (which is what free-market TV brings you). It also sets a price threshold for those alternatives.

So even tho you hate everything about its output it's still giving you value.

[Mardy]

In Our Time is worth the licence fee on it's own and the sort of thing that no commercial radio would ever broadcast.

[whisty]

BBC is fantastic, been to the USA ,man you need the attention span of a goldfish to enjoy TV there.

There's another plus side, you can record all the commercial stuff not worrying that you didn't get to see BIG SHOT SUPERSTAR on the main stage and go have some fun in the smaller venues.

[MEGABOWL]

Sometimes I find myself annoyed with the BBC then I remember two things: -

1) Murdoch hates it

2) The Daily Mail hates it

and it passes....