Timmy elsewhere

City AM:

We all know that the luvvies are rather of the left but it does amuse me that it’s the left insisting that nothing must change. Nothing quite as conservative as the British left these days. The one vaguely encouraging noise being made is about encouraging diversity. But sadly this does not mean the only diversity of any importance – the diversity of opinion that the BBC cares to put on air, or among its own staff. Sell the BBC and free those with no interest in it from paying for it.

18 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere”

  1. “And yet the BBC provides far more content on a wide range of channels across radio, TV, and online.”

    Yes, but it’s a sea of mediocrity. Charlie Brooker and Horrible Histories are about the only things I watch on there, and I’ve tried their terrible dramas and comedies. I mean, if you like terrible Andrew Davies adaptations and regurgitations of Prime Suspect then good for you. You pay for it. I’m spending my evenings watching Archer and Master of None on Netflix.

  2. ^^^ Quite.

    Comparing BBC drama to what the clever Americans are up to isn’t even a fair exercise any more. And it’s nothing to do with budgets (Breaking Bad was fairly modest to begin with), the writing is just on another level altogether,

  3. Lefties view of the need for radical change in society tends to diminish quite swiftly when they see their own personal sources of income under threat.

    There are probably real, ‘hard’ lefties for whom this isn’t true (particularly those that don’t have much in the way of income in the first place), but luvvies aren’t real lefties (they don’t generally even have the modicum of brain needed to adopt this position), just modish SJWs.

  4. Dan,

    Nice link.

    It’s the standard argument:
    Q: We have a problem.
    A (left): More government.
    A (right): Less government.
    Ad nauseam.

  5. A large part of the problem is that the BBC lovies, as our moral superiors and mentors, see the commissioning of any drama as an opportunity to preach and to “subtly” imbue its anti-liberal values. Everything is normative. It’s propaganda.

    You’re watching the programme aaaaaand….here it is. Thunk. Like a turd dropping in your Martini. Today’s moral lesson right on schedule. Oh and it’s delivered by a token minority character. So double points.

    I’ll watch Netflix thanks.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    wat dabney – “A large part of the problem is that the BBC lovies, as our moral superiors and mentors, see the commissioning of any drama as an opportunity to preach and to “subtly” imbue its anti-liberal values. Everything is normative. It’s propaganda.”

    American TV is not much better, they are just smarter at it. They hate White people of British origin for instance. They hate husbands and fathers. This is not hard to see either. Miscegenation seems to be the newest trend as others on the internet have pointed out. I don’t much care either way, but it is odd that suddenly everyone decided that we had to have inter-racial couples everywhere.

    Personally I would not mind. Except the luvvies at the BBC demand Civil Service conditions – no firings for incompetence or bias for instance – with commercial salaries. If that sh!t Ross wishes to preach for a living, the State Church seems an appropriate venue. But if he wants to be paid millions he ought to f*ck off to ITV. I would like to see all salaries capped at £40,000. Especially for the managers.

  7. Interesting pro-BBC argument by Lewis here:

    “in an era of increasing cultural fragmentation, its universality is its strength”

    I get that some people are nostalgic for the time when you could come into work on a Friday morning and everyone would be talking about what had happened on Strictly Pointless Eastenders the night before. But that hasn’t been true since the launch of ITV in 1955. Netflix & co are hammering the final nails into that coffin; opening the BBC to market forces would merely be acknowledging that reality.

  8. 95% of people watch the BBC.
    OK, but I can’t help wondering what the percentage would be if we paid our licence fee to Sky and then extra to watch the BBC.

  9. “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

    Part of the issue with the BBC is that the majority of the pontificators in this country make a living from it. So of course they’ve convinced themselves that the licence fee is reasonable.

  10. The fact that 95% of people watch BBC after being forced to pay for it is irrelevant. 3.5 billion gets extracted every year (not per decade, per year) so it’s not surprising that they can make a few watchable shows (in fact, what’s surprising is how few watchable shows they make for 3.5 billion). So of course people will watch them once they’ve been made when they’re free at that point. That doesn’t mean 95% want to be forced to pay for their content.

    Anyway, I expect a high proportion of people also watch ITV. Does that mean we shoud pay an ITV fee in advance as well?

  11. You’re watching the programme aaaaaand….here it is. Thunk. Like a turd dropping in your Martini. Today’s moral lesson right on schedule. Oh and it’s delivered by a token minority character. So double points.

    Without fail, and usually a giant, stinking slimy wet one. I used to always try and remember to put a cover over my drink first.

  12. The BBC can go hang since they’ve cancelled top gear!

    Quite. That was the point I stopped paying my telly tax.

    Not missed watching live broadcast TV one bit.

  13. The funny thing about the BBC is that the English types who support it think that it’s seen round the world as a beacon on enlightened broadcasting and a global source of unbiased news, whereas in fact most foreigners think of it as the British government propaganda outlet.

  14. Dave,
    It’s like out-running a bear: you don’t have to run faster than the bear, just faster than the other bloke.
    For Johnny Foreigner to watch it, the BBC doesn’t need to produce enlightened unbiased news; it just needs to provide better news than other providers. That’s a remarkably low bar.

  15. Andrew>

    Yes, it is a low bar – but not one many people outside the UK think it gets over. The whole idea of the wonderful institution that is the BBC gets rather knocked apart by the fact that most of the world thinks it’s one step below Fox News on the reliability scale.

  16. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “the fact that most of the world thinks it’s one step below Fox News on the reliability scale.”

    I am surprised people think it is the second most reliable news source in the world. As high as that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *