The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) continues to refute claims that they are heavily biased to the left and the State run entertainers deny any claims that they pander to the elites of British society. But a new internal study seems to be saying that the programing "remains too middle class and highbrow and needs to be driven downmarket". Leave it to the BEEB to imagine that they are somehow too smart for their audience.
Executives at the corporation have always denied that it is a bastion of the liberal elite, pandering to the young, upmarket and metropolitan.
But now they are secretly conceding there may be some truth in the accusations and are drawing up plans to make programmes more populist.
Some "truth in the accusations"? As laughable it is for the BEEB to continue to deny their leftward leaning editorial underpinnings -- they "embedded" a reporter with the Taliban to give them positive coverage, for Heaven's sake --it's even more outrageous that they imagine themselves the smartest one in the room.
For those Americans who are unaware, the BBC is funded by the government and every British citizen is forced by law to pay a tax to own and watch their TVs. Even if they never watch a BBC channel, they pay the tax. They call it a license fee and it amounts to a compulsory annual payment of £131.50 (about $260 US yearly).
But, the new study seems to be saying that the BBC's programming does not serve the "lower classes".
Although in its early stages, the report has already found that lower income families are less well served than their wealthier counterparts. "There is a feeling we may be serving the professional classes well, but not reaching the C2s and D1s," one BBC insider is reported to have said.
It is a good question, seeing as how the British people are forced to foot the bills for the BBC. Should the media group cater to the whole of the citizenry, or should they program only what they, not the paying public, want to program?
Naturally, the BBC reveals that they couldn't care less what the people who pay the bills want. They imagine themselves the ultimate arbiter of what is good entertainment.
However, a BBC insider said: "The corporation has lost all perspective. It is defeatist to constantly chase the populist market. Sometimes you have to give people what they need and not just what they want."
Can't you just feel the disdain they have for that lowly "market"? And isn't it interesting that this "insider" feels that the market works... except for what HE wants programmed? Obviously this "insider" and his compatriots inside the BBC imagine they know better about what the public "needs".
What other group than leftists would imagine they are smarter, more "caring" and "civilized" than are their fellow citizens? What other group thinks they are so much better than all they encounter but the elitists of the left that populate the boardrooms of the BEEB?
A spokesman for the BBC also said, "It's ludicrous to suggest the BBC would dumb down."
So, there you have it. As far as the BBC is concerned, in order to give tax payers what they want, they have to "dumb down." After all, those stupid lower classes just aren't smart enough to "get" the highbrow programming of the BBC and they just don't know what is good for them. Right?
Just goes to show that leftists think they are smarter than the rest of us no matter from what country they hail.


















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
With a $260/yr tax on TVs (
April 2, 2007 - 04:27 ET by sarcasmoWith a $260/yr tax on TVs (and I believe that's per-boob-tube) the BBC might have a point about having a dimwitted viewership. I can't believe that's politically sustainable, but obviously it is, because they've been this dumb for decades.
JMR
whu??
April 2, 2007 - 15:54 ET by ValuedCustomerthat's funny cuz I remember something about.. <a HREF="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770">We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News</a>
It's sad to have to pay for a
April 2, 2007 - 05:43 ET by motherbeltIt's sad to have to pay for a system that thinks one is too dumb to understand most of what is presented, but hey, our tax dollars go to NPR....
Does anyone know what C2's and D1's are? I'm guessing they are tax and/or income brackets from the context.
Not just NPR, a bloated, us
April 2, 2007 - 05:53 ET by sarcasmoNot just NPR, a bloated, useless FCC. (At least NPR spits out the occasional gem like Nova -- the FCC just annoys -- with 0 redeeming features, although both should immediately be 100%-defunded IMO!)
JMR
Sarcasmo:You wanna go another
April 2, 2007 - 09:56 ET by BDSarcasmo:
You wanna go another round about the FCC?
You just stated the FCC has zero redeeming features....
Let us just assume that the military needs to test a new system that uses part of the broadcast spectrum currently in use by something else. THe militaries temporary use of this spectrum might in some way damage the current users (Let us just say the spectrum is what is currently Serius Radio turf)
Without the FCC, who should the military coordinate with to mitigate harm?
You know me. Anytime, toe to toe.
April 2, 2007 - 10:01 ET by sarcasmoYou know me. Anytime, toe to toe. And, as I've repeatedly said, the answer is property rights (which the military already has, and would-have under a free marketplace) and enforcement via the federal courts, just as with real estate, intellectual property, etc. Spectrum is no different than other property, not holy, and it should not require a separate (and speech-chiling -- but you never seem to want to address that issue!) big government agency. CATO has much more on this subject.
JMR
Do not care what CATO has....
April 2, 2007 - 10:26 ET by BDDo not care what CATO has....
Currently, the US military does not have any property rights to any portion of the spectrum, nor should it as needs and use of the spectrum change almost on a daily basis.
For instance, Serius and XM radio would never be able to stand up and begin broadcasting as they did five or six years ago without the coordinating agency efforts of the FCC. As such, portions of the spectrum were fenced off for use by that coordinating agency and all other users have to respect that (Unlike in Mxico and other Third World countries where EVERYONE can use whatever they wish and chaos reigns.) such as the US military. Now, if we decide we wish to test a system on a portion of the spectrum used by Serius and XM, mitigation efforts are required by the FCC to ensure that serius and XM are not harmed in their efforts.
Nor do I really care about any speach chilling effect, you stated that the FCC has no redeeming value and I have proven it does.
It's obvious you don't care
April 2, 2007 - 10:37 ET by sarcasmoIt's obvious you don't care about (or want to address) big government's speech chilling effects, but you're just plain wrong about the US military not having any property rights right now in the electromagnetic spectrum, as a simple web search shows there are 25 federal agencies working to insure those rights right now. I'm saying a single federal court system would do the job more cheaply while at the same time tossing Brent Bozell out on his ass instead of listening to him respectfully whenever he whines about speech on nonmilitary frequencies, I'm not advocating "anarchy."
JMR
Okay, hypothetically we do wa
April 2, 2007 - 10:47 ET by BDOkay, hypothetically we do way with the FCC.
I wish to test a new system that uses the same part of the spectrum currently in use by ABC TV's Satellite downlink. SInce I am in the military and it is for military purposes, therefore I get to willy-nilly take them off the net?
Or lets say that you are right and the executive branch accedes to the judicial and allows THEM to decide. I go to the 9th Circuit, or do I go to the Military judicial system to decide when I want to take all the Majors off their downlinks since I need to do so?
Or let us just say that I caome up with a new use, such as a dvice that can track a terrorist using the RF spectrum based on thoughts regarding ice cream as long as he is not wearing a tinfoil hat. But the system uses Serius Radio's portion of the Spectrum and the same tech data. Do I just say "Tsing-Lao" and get on it with it, ruining all of the Serius systems? Which judge gets the decision to decide?
If you can convince a judge
April 2, 2007 - 10:55 ET by sarcasmoIf you can convince a judge that your test implicates national security enough to trump property rights, yes. Otherwise, no. Chances are a judge says 'yes,' I'd bet, if you have any sort of a halfway-decent case. Take a look at how often judges deny wiretaps, for example. And which judge is a jurisdictional issue, as with other property rights the federal system somehow, amazingly, works it out -- perhaps because they don't spend that much time listening to Brent whine about speech which succeeds in the commercial marketplace better than the speech Brent prefers. Off to play/eat now, but I'll return.
JMR
Okay, Sarcasmo I can make a c
April 2, 2007 - 11:04 ET by BDOkay, Sarcasmo I can make a case for removel of ALL of the spectrum right now! But the FCC will not allow such - (Thank God.)
ANd will the judges apportion? For instance, will they assign WLS to the same bandwidth and power of another station forty miles away?
And let us say that the 9th Circuit judges are all in favor of creating a station in SF that goes up to a bajillion Watts of radiated power that will effectively cover most of CONUS, because they like the liberal talk show hosts. BUt over in the 3rd Circuit they decide that a station in their district that hosts Rush Limbaugh should get that same bandwidth and identical radiated power. You really gonna take this to the Supreme court and have them decide each and every milliwat of radiated power and slot on the spectrum?
You really do not understand the concept of a "Coordinating Agency" do you?
I have no idea what you mea
April 2, 2007 - 13:06 ET by sarcasmoI have no idea what you mean by "removel." I'm talking about privatization.
It's likely all this policy would be coordinated by DC circuit & appellate courts, who are unlikely to look kindly on trespass, which is what you hypothetically describe the courts as wanting, for some reason (leaving aside the property-rights disasters like Kelo, let's assume they can do their jobs better than a couple dozen+ federal agencies, even as I gladly concede things are unlikely to become perfect -- just cheaper & with plenty-less respect for whinging windbags like Brent Bozell!).
You really do not understand the concept of "private property," do you?
JMR
Privatization? Okay, since
April 2, 2007 - 14:10 ET by BDPrivatization? Okay, since the entire Boradcast pectrum is in the public domain and is therefore owned by the citizenry, who decides who gets what frequency?
Believe it or not, the spectrum is a very crowded place in which the FCC is regularly forced to limit bandwidth of various entities for the public good (As I proved earlier through many examples).
You assume that an executive branch function such as command and control of the nations bandwidth can be adequately done by the judiciary branch which has never been proven. While you can say what you want regarding Free speach, one thing that has never been said is that the FCC has not adequately controlled the broadcast spectrum. In fact, it is a role model for allowing freedom of transmission as well as maximizing throughput.
Private property? So who gets this "Private property?' you specify? Since I hypothetially own a TV broadcast license today for use of 1420 AM, can I leave it to my children in perpetuity? I am the part owner of XM - can I take my portion of the Spectrum and sell it to Serius or even a new start up?
Personally, you seem to get strung up on the free speach issue (Hence the repeated comments aimed at Bozell- of which I do not care) which completely colors your thinking and assumption that the FCC must therefore be totally wrong and corrupt. I personally am able to get beyond this and see the vital need since I regularly work frequency allocation issues.
1. The highest bidder, ju
April 2, 2007 - 14:23 ET by sarcasmo1. The highest bidder, just like with land or other types of property. Free markets work that way. And BTW, something that's "owned" by everyone ends up being taken care of by nobody, as things like public land & public schools and socialism-generally continually prove, even as the proof lands on deaf ears left and right.
2. I have never denied that spectrum is crowded (indeed, quite the opposite) but I do (repeatedly....) challenge whether the FCC is at all efficient, even the part of the FCC which ignores Brent Bozell just like federal judges probably would and actually does something useful.
3. You assume command and control of the entire spectrum is an executive branch function. I disagree. And as far as maximizing throughput and technological innovation, your ignorance of CATO is again showing here. Tossing in military mumbo jumbo terms does not help you in this debate, either, as I care even less about them than you care about Brent Bozell being against free speech.
4. Again, the highest bidder. The present system can be sorted-out in the courts. And yes, I'm stuck on free speech. I came here to Bozell's home when he made the mistake of messin' with Howard Stern, and I've not decided to leave even though he doesn't much like to come out & play. I'm gonna keep bringing him up when people here yammer about the FCC until my taxes no-longer support his attempts at big-government censorship. And yes, I'll take on Bozell toe to toe on this issue just like I'll take on you. Any time, any place...
JMR
Military Mumbo jumbo? Huh?
April 2, 2007 - 14:40 ET by BDMilitary Mumbo jumbo? Huh?
I cannot find any jargon, please show me. THen I will deal with your other para's.
"WLS" absolutely-
April 2, 2007 - 14:54 ET by sarcasmo"WLS" absolutely-qualifies as jargon. And keep in mind, I don't care about it -- whatever it is -- as much as I care about Brent Bozell using my taxes for his political censorship-agenda, and that's unlikely to change once you define the term.
And since you "don't chase links" let's just quote a bit of what CATO says here: "First, regulators cannot adapt regulations fast enough to keep up with changes in the industry. Cellular phones were delayed for 10 years by the Federal Communications Commission, at a cost to the economy estimated by National Economic Research Associates to be $85 billion. Regulators' attempts to adjust to change create further uncertainty and delay.
Second, regulators are most friendly to familiar technologies and see new competition as an attack on regulatory goals." (Emphasis mine.)
Sound familiar?
JMR
Sarcasmo:WLS is a commercial
April 2, 2007 - 15:29 ET by BDSarcasmo:
WLS is a commercial radio station located in southern Chicago that is one of the "Blowtorch" stations because it is allowed such a high effective radiated power. Probably the second most famous radio stations in the country other than WABC in New York or KDKA in Pittsburg. Sorry for the confusion.
As someone who has first hand experience with Cell Phone frequency management (WCDMA & CDMA), the FCC's role in that case has been a successful case of managing the spectrum. It has very effectively acted as steward for our assets.
And once again, I do not care about your issues with Brent Bozell.
1. Thanks for defining the
April 2, 2007 - 15:44 ET by sarcasmo1. Thanks for defining the term, but you have yet to address my points above as you claimed you'd do. (I suggest numbers.)
2. Your experience means absolutely nothing to me as a taxpayer, and I pay for this stuff so I know a bit about it, too. I trust CATO and NERA, and they say that $85 Billion-with-a-B is flushed down the drain (in addition to the taxes it costs to run a big government agency) because of the FCC's delays on cellphone technology alone. Think about it. You have nothing to cite but your claimed expertise, and I'm sorry, but that just won't cut it with me any more than my vast personal experience with the tax & spend drugwar's endemic corruption effects on law enforcement apparently cuts it with you. You'll need to do better than your own allegations & experiences to win this one, BD. You're a military professional, so you might have trouble imagining the effect of the FCC on entrepreneurs, but it's there whether or not you ever noticed it. All eighty-five BILLION of it.
3. I don't care if you don't care about Brent Bozell. Brent cost me taxes so I'm costin' him reputation. That's life. Maybe Brent's learning a "tough love" lesson from me right now. I hope so, but if not, I don't care. He's gonna stay part of the debate until he resolves to cost me no more taxes via testimony in front of the useless FCC. Think "fair game" until that point, Brent.
JMR
2.) I assume you are saying
April 2, 2007 - 18:17 ET by BD2.) I assume you are saying that the lack of a frequency clearance somehow cost an investor a chance at a potential investment. Welcome to the decision making cycle. And you think the courts will be faster? Hahahahahahaha!
Tax and Spend Drug war -yadyadayada....
3.) As stated before, I do not care about any potential beef you have with Mr Bozell. Sorry.
Ah, finally a reply! And no
April 2, 2007 - 18:24 ET by sarcasmoAh, finally a reply! And no, they did not say "an investor." I'll repeat the quote: "Cellular phones were delayed for 10 years by the Federal Communications Commission, at a cost to the economy estimated by National Economic Research Associates to be $85 billion." That's the USA's economy losing $85-thousand-million dollars via delay, BD, not some single investor. Oh, and your experience referenced above? Exact-same yadda yadda yadda.
JMR
Sure, I can reference a poten
April 2, 2007 - 20:10 ET by BDSure, I can reference a potential loss to an economy of a delayed deployment of a system. RIGHT!!!!! That is like saying that the US economy lost $85 million from the failure to properly market a product. Hahahahahahahaha!
No, as a non-entrepreneur,
April 3, 2007 - 01:03 ET by sarcasmoNo, as a non-entrepreneur, you'll probably never get it, but that does not change the fact that you have 0 (zero) data to refute me besides your alleged experience, which strikes me like my experience of tax and spend drugwar corruption strikes you. And it's 1000 TIMES "$85 million," but from a big spender like you, what's an order of magnitude or 2 among taxpayers, right?? And I love how you try to turn big government's regulatory delay into some sort of marketing failure nobody ever even mentioned before in this thread, it's the final death of your argument's last hope, as you instinctively start making numbers/things up when you're losing... Hahahahahaha yourself.
JMR
Sarc:Your "Projected Los
April 3, 2007 - 05:46 ET by BDSarc:
Your "Projected Loss" is like me saying that the US lost $85 Billion last year from lack of sales in moon trips to tourists. No such "Loss" occurred.
I do know that when subject items are fielded without adequate prior research and development and COORDINATION EFFORT, the costs can be IMMENSE. But then again, I am in position to know such.
Sorry, I'm not impressed wi
April 3, 2007 - 05:54 ET by sarcasmoSorry, I'm not impressed with your allegations of expertise in this field, I trust CATO and the free market more than you and big government control. Find me a reputable group saying the economy lost any money from no trips to the moon if you can... The left sure hates CATO when it makes fools of them, but the right's generally just silent, so this is fun.
JMR
I have no beef with CATO, but
April 3, 2007 - 06:09 ET by BDI have no beef with CATO, but a loss from a non-event is just that, a non-event. THerefore it is not an actual loss.
Like saying the economy "Lost" $85 Billion in 1962 because automatic defibulators were not invented yet. Huh?
1. Cellphones, unlike your
April 3, 2007 - 06:35 ET by sarcasmo1. Cellphones, unlike your example, were invented. (In fact, spies in WW2 used a version of cellular radio technology, some of this stuff's been around a while!)
2. If you don't believe the CATO economists (some of 'em Nobel-winning, IIRC...) let's switch subjects slightly to your favorite (except, that is, when I'm talkin' about the pills popped by the US military!) subject, drugs! You mentioned 1962, too, so I'll switch thinktanks to the Independent Institute and let them set the wayback-machine... Same result, this time costing human lives instead of money. And just for the link-challenged, a quote: "Three bodies of evidence indicate that the costs of FDA requirements exceed the benefits. In other words, three bodies of evidence suggest that the FDA kills and harms, on net. First, we compare pre-1962 drug approval times and rates of drug introduction with post-1962 approval times and rates of introduction. Second, we compare drug availability and safety in the United States with the same in other countries. Third, we compare the relatively unregulated market of off-label drug uses in the United States with the on-label market. In the final section, before turning to reform options, we also discuss the evidence showing that the costs of FDA advertising restrictions exceed the benefits." (Emphasis mine.)
JMR
Modern Cell phones using time
April 3, 2007 - 21:23 ET by BDModern Cell phones using time phased access in no way resemble communications systems from WWII. Sorry.
You and I will not agree on an apparent need or social desire to spark up, so I will decline your offer to discuss illicit narcotics.
Sorry yourself, I never sai
April 4, 2007 - 00:38 ET by sarcasmoSorry yourself, I never said anything about "time phased access," go back and read. Early walkie talkies were the technological forefathers of cellphones. And I'll take you on WRT this subject or drugs any time, any day. In fact, I might even play "spot the socialist" with you, using this thread. Iraq's probably gonna seem easy compared to me, BD....I don't give up easily.
JMR
And just to knock a final n
April 3, 2007 - 01:11 ET by sarcasmoAnd just to knock a final nail into your argument's rickety coffin, since the $85 Billion-with-a-B is just-cellphone-delay costs to the economy, check this executive summary out, from back in 1996. Libertarians have been right on this issue, while Demopublicans & Republicrats don't want to listen, for literally-decades...It's tiresome, and during that time big government -- including the FCC -- has grown enormously. By comparison (and this is the excuse I always hear...) the cost to taxpayers of Brent Bozell's whining, pro-political-censorship FCC-testimony is relatively small, but it's still there...
JMR
Yadyadyad-- Tax and spend Dru
April 3, 2007 - 05:50 ET by BDYadyadyad-- Tax and spend Drugwar- Yadayayayaya Brent Bozell.
Too bad i just do not throw a few immaterial items and people in to the mix like, I KNOW....
Yadyayada - KMART- YADAYADYADA - Elroy P Johnson Jr. YADAYADYAD.
Hmmmmm...... You are right, that feels GOOD!
Feels good, maybe. Definite
April 3, 2007 - 05:57 ET by sarcasmoFeels good, maybe. Definitely looks stupid IMO. You have yet to address my point, as usual. Why is spectrum different than other property, and why can't a free market and private property rights instead of socialism benefit consumers more by at least $85 billion solely in the case of cellphone-delays? And I repeat, Brent Bozell is "in play" on this debate until HE QUITS COSTING ME TAXES. Get used to it.
JMR
THe electromagnetic spectrum
April 3, 2007 - 06:16 ET by BDTHe electromagnetic spectrum is different because, by several courts decisions it is an item held to owned by the US citizenry and placed in trust for use by that citizenry. The FCC has been given the mandate to manage the spectrum for the benefit of all. Wanna sell off the Lincoln Memorial? Fort Hood? Central Park? Or even more to the point and more appropos.... Do you wanna sell off the atmosphere surrounding us to the highest bidder? So Brent wouldn't sell you a cellphone and you are cross about it because you were not able to use it to call for a pizza last night? Got it.....
So, suddenly, it's YOU trus
April 3, 2007 - 06:38 ET by sarcasmoSo, suddenly, it's YOU trusting the courts, after all that derision for trusting 'em when it's my ideas relying on them? Unintentionally-funny, as usual... But not at all convincing!
JMR
Your question implied a reque
April 3, 2007 - 21:25 ET by BDYour question implied a request for a difference in the spectrum, I presented a difference as a part of a justification.
Non sequitur.JMR
April 4, 2007 - 00:24 ET by sarcasmoNon sequitur.
JMR
Living in Germany (serving US
April 2, 2007 - 05:50 ET by ltcolusmcretLiving in Germany (serving US Army as civ) for last two years I watch Auntie Beeb on a daily basis (Sky Net Sat service). The BBC (and its employees-leastwise the so-called "talent" in front of the camera) is without a doubt the most elistist bunch of communist scum on the face of the earth. Their disdain for anyone who doesn't "think correctly" and that of course means as they think is obvious. I would pity the poor limeys who are forced by their Nanny Govt to fund this abomination but then most of them are socialist fools who get what they deserve. One gets sick just watching these running dogs of communism and one cannot take more than a few moments at a time of the BBC news channels.
These are the same people wh
April 2, 2007 - 10:23 ET by mattmThese are the same people who believe Algore and Michael Moore, and who give Amad-insanejihad more slack than they give Bush or Blair, and they act as if they are the smart ones??? Oy sayy, t's-a bit cheeky, wot?