Should the BBC continue to receive public money?
The BBC has been the cornerstone of the British media for nearly a century. The current UK government wants to drastically reduce its public funding.
The question is, does the BBC have a right to receive public money or should it fend for itself?
My own position is that the BBC has done and continues to do some brilliant work, but it has also become a haven for a particular type of very left-leaning liberal identity and multiculturalist politics. The result of the Brexit referendum suggests that about half of Britain does not identify with this ideology. Consequently, many UK citizens feel that they are obliged to fund a huge media corporation that serves as a propaganda machine for a political orthodoxy to which they are opposed.
So, in an age of streaming, podcasts etc., it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the BBC to self-fund. The Guardian has done this very successfully and is ideologically similar.
Ironically, the most effective claim for the BBC's continued public status is to play the nostalgia-tradition card, which at heart is the small 'c' conservative position writ large.
The question is, does the BBC have a right to receive public money or should it fend for itself?
My own position is that the BBC has done and continues to do some brilliant work, but it has also become a haven for a particular type of very left-leaning liberal identity and multiculturalist politics. The result of the Brexit referendum suggests that about half of Britain does not identify with this ideology. Consequently, many UK citizens feel that they are obliged to fund a huge media corporation that serves as a propaganda machine for a political orthodoxy to which they are opposed.
So, in an age of streaming, podcasts etc., it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the BBC to self-fund. The Guardian has done this very successfully and is ideologically similar.
Ironically, the most effective claim for the BBC's continued public status is to play the nostalgia-tradition card, which at heart is the small 'c' conservative position writ large.
Comments (14)
CBC is running on the ticket to prove their fundworthiness to the public, by putting forth convincing arguments and slogans which assert that funding is a fun ding.
And everyone puts their money where their mouth is.
...reporting the truth is leaning to the left.
Ya know what...it is, because the last thing in the world the right wants...is to hear the truth. They want news artificially slanted toward the right.
So...if you guys get control in England or Canada or the United States...do your best to dismantle the media. Then you can get Rupert Murdoch to do the broadcasting of right-wing fiction...and you will feel better. Your country, and its ethics, will go down the drain, but don't let that bother you.
The BBC's experiment with multiculturalism & identity has produced some absolute crap radio and TV, which strongly suggests that politically correct orthodoxies are not the way to nurture media talent.
I’m against state TV as a matter of principle, but I also think people should be careful when ridding themselves of long-standing institutions. The PC stuff is dreadful and decadent, but I don’t think it’s enough to drop funding for the BBC.
Like what?
Besides, there's crap radio and TV that has nothing to do with "multiculturalism & identity." Sometimes writers, directors, and actors just suck.
We will ignore the "resolved" aspect for now...what "national policy" are you referring to that is based on LGBTQ+, feminism, and race?
What was the previous policy that this new one replaced?
That's, for the most part, just silly little 6th grade reading level propaganda devoid of anything akin to logic, proper uses (and abuses) of facts, and so on, regardless of any serious "left" or "right" paradigm
Whatever archaic philosophical axioms that nonsense is predicated on to begin with (generally probably an outdated philosophical tidbit from Bentham or Mill, or some other philosophical or psychological axiom such as 'behaviorism' which is known to be considered nonsense, and arguably even was during the archaic era when it was supposedly popular or trendy, such as more serious philosophy of the law and its various rational and intentional axioms, as per Oliver Wendell Holmes, and others (coupled with a bare basic ignorance of the simple cause and effect which such an archaic philosophy and the proposals predicated on the archaic logic and nonsensical and impractical approximations and averagings thereof were apt to ignore entirely due to want of any intellectual reasoning that approximating or attempting to measure or estimate would require the use of mental and mathematical faculties lacking, or be entirely stupid and/or ignorant of to begin with, in both theories and in practice...
...falsely conflated either dishonestly or through sheer ignorance, lack of education, or stupidity with other domains of knowledge and abstractions), kind of akin to those idiots who conflate a scientific "theory" with a "conspiracy theory", due to the simple mutual inclusions of the word "theory", for example.
Most if not all, mass media, BBC, "liberal", "conservative", or otherwise, would be mostly obsolete if most people read, wrote, or had basic reading comprehension above the bare minimum 6th grade reading level which most of it is marketed to and for, such as having actually ever read and fully comprehended a treatise on Aristotelian logic and how it is and/or should actually be used in theory or practice.
(Hint, merely pointing out a textbook "fallacy" in another's argument isn't actually necessarily a good debate tactic, since the use of fallacies isn't necessarily or automatically "bad", it simply has the potential to be wrong in varying degrees (as opposed to pure mathematical abstractions).
Sometime I'd be interested in doing a more serious, critical history of marketing, journalism, and so on (something which doesn't boil down to or degenerate into childish fandom of a specific "network" devoid of any further facts, or critical assements of the reality thereof to begin with, and what the primary and various marketing methods, axioms and target demographics are to begin with.
(Beyond those who primarily or only read or write at a 6th grade reading level, or have at most a 100 IQ, since that much is already obvious,... or should be anyway, and who rarely or never even so much as visit either a local library or online Kindle or E-reader and read such much as a serious book written at the graduate or postgraduate school level, which would render 99% of what at worst, nonsense, at best, extremely dumbed down, "fast food" variants of much deeper stuff existing in said full length books at the best of superior thinking men and women who read and who write them).
Sounds great :smile: I would love to see the summary when competed. However, it sounds like a complicated and potentially tedious study to complete. So I am interested, but not enough to put in actual effort...but if I ever have a few spare million dollars lying around, I would be happy to fund such a study.
No.
Yes!
The BBC is inevitably biased towards the establishment that funds it, and this has been minimised by establishing a degree of independence which is often attacked by that establishment. It needs a change in funding method along the lines of a block grant from general taxation and a renewed and strengthened charter and perhaps charitable status that would bring it under the ambit of the Charity Commisioners, or perhaps even some direct democratic control. But to leave all the media in the hands of the super rich, and funded by big business advertising will not lead to a fair, honest high quality media.
And now, sport...