Amazon Secure ATP TV Rights

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-atp-idUSKBN1AH4MZ

Sad sad day

Is it bad? Netflix is cheap, is Amazon?

Sky is extortionate, this might do that for me.

Amazon is cheaper 5.99 a month vs 7.99.

But live TV on Amazon will be something altogether new for them.

Btw they ruined GrandTour/Top Gear totally, show totally sucks, especially the force-fed american "OMG & Jesus" which seemed to have been ordered to be said as many times as possible by the trio.

Many more people watch sky sports than have Amazon TV, so this means tennis will reach a lot less people.

bogbrush wrote:Is it bad? Netflix is cheap, is Amazon?

Sky is extortionate, this might do that for me.

I think it is. I have always held the view Sky is mainstream like the other TV companies and totally understand that Sky is expensive to some, but for me for them to retain and show F1, darts, rugby super league, horse racing, greyhound racing, superbikes. I am just so shocked that they no longer perceive tennis to be on the level as those other sports. I was fecked off when they decided not to renew the US Open rights.

For me it's a body blow to the sport that the main TV companies in this country have no interest in the sport.

Truly shocking.

Well, I think we have to look a bit forward. 

I'm actually a bit technophobic - I can't operate anything, I use a phone to speak on (only) and so on. However, I'm good at working out what use stuff will be to me and I said about 5 years ago that by now easily my phone, computer, TV, etc would have become one machine and these separate words would start to fall out of use. I was a bit early and got that wrong but it's coming fast.

I admit I'm sometimes a big aggressive in these - I thought Blockbusters would be bust 10 years by now!

Pretty soon the idea of watching visual broadcasts by any other mechanism than the internet will seem odd. In 10 years it'll be like sending your photos off to be developed. There will be broadcasting anarchy, which will be brilliant for consumers.

It's annoying for now but I think it's tme I embraced a bit more of the Netflix / Amazon World and less of the concept of mainstream TV. I just look forward to the day that the BBC becomes subscriber funded and then we can have a real market in stuff.

Even this isn't the end of it. Bernie Eccleston is a genius who was decades ahead of his time when he took over the production of TV coverage of F1m but that was in the era of terrestrial broadcasting.

I predict a future where channels simply host owner content (like a shop hosts branded products) and they shop around for the best carrier, just like I've predicted the demise of conventional retailer stores for over 10 years now, and I'm going to be proven right on that too.

^I agree with this. Broadcasting and the media overall is changing. I already find the better news coverage is now with small online content providers.

I think subscription is looking like the future. In fact, perhaps not even subscription, it could be all on demand.

The main obstacle to this will be politics.

The BBC is a wretched organisation but there are too many people who have a political interest in it for it to be successfully killed off.

YouTube has huge potential as a host of online content but its management appears to be fully signed up to identity politics and will censor content that has even a hint of being "right wing" (i.e. anything to the right of Bernie Sanders).

Platforms like Facebook and Twitter are much the same.

The technology is already there. Whether it will allow itself to go beyond niche appeal is the question.

I agree BB. Tech is there, online streaming has shaped the way as has mobile device gaming that in time will kill off the Playstations and Xboxes of this world. Now, the issue I see with subscriptions to online platforms/streams is third party content (coming from a guy who doesn't use online banking or even carried an eBay transaction!) because such platforms or content providers will not be backed like a Sky or ITV. Will create an reliance on sponsors (TV stations do this, but one of the major selling points of online streaming is not being interrupted by adverts.). That's why I like my Sky. Seamless and I don't lead to log in to access content or worry about sites crashing or anything like that. I am all about less than 12 steps in any transactional activity.

BB, do you know why the high street won't demise that soon? Because of old fashioned buggers like me that refuse to even embrace online home shopping. Done it once, got short dated crap. Never again! Plus I like the walk

HM Murdoch wrote:

The BBC is a wretched organisation but there are too many people who have a political interest in it for it to be successfully killed off.

Normally everything you post is measured and balanced; but on this one we will have to disagree- I think you are being very hyperbolic.
BBC is not perfect, but what has it done to deserve being called wretched.
If you think BBC News and Sky News are bad; go to the US and watch Fox News followed by MSNBC... BBC and SKY news aren't perfect but miles better than the ridiculous partisan crap of US TV news.

legendkillar wrote:
BB, do you know why the high street won't demise that soon? Because of old fashioned buggers like me that refuse to even embrace online home shopping. Done it once, got short dated crap. Never again! Plus I like the walk

I had the same debate with a friend. My answer was that my kids wouldn't dream of going to a shop unless they (the giris at least) do it for social reasons.

Retailers have very high break even points. They can't handle lost turnover, if you and the rest of us of a slightly more mature disposition carry on but the next generation don't, they're done. Big shops need volume, lot of fixed cost there. Not like warehouses and internet portals.

It won't be quite that simple, things don't tend to be. Retailers will try to adapt, they'll make alliances, mergers, change shape, but in the end their ruthless profiteering based on hegemony over access to consumers is ending. As someone who has sold directly to all of them I'd say it couldn't happen to nicer people.

I do not watch BBC TV (first I live in the US and second I do not have a TV set) but for many years I have used BBC as one of my primary news sources on the internet.

I have to say that over time they have deteriorated horribly.  If their TV coverage quality is anything like their website, I do not blame HMM for calling them "wretched".

They are awful, completely biased and full-on social engineering.

bogbrush wrote:They are awful, completely biased and full-on social engineering.

Hah.  So just like the website.  Focus on propaganda and masquerade as news outlet.  On public's dime to boot.

Even sites like Breitbart and Salon are better - at least they do not sell themselves as neutral.

DECIMA wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

The BBC is a wretched organisation but there are too many people who have a political interest in it for it to be successfully killed off.

Normally everything you post is measured and balanced; but on this one we will have to disagree- I think you are being very hyperbolic.
BBC is not perfect, but what has it done to deserve being called wretched.
If you think BBC News and Sky News are bad; go to the US and watch Fox News followed by MSNBC... BBC and SKY news aren't perfect but miles better than the ridiculous partisan crap of US TV news.

But the BBC is also partisan. It has a world view that it pushes very hard.

That in itself doesn't bother me. ALL media outlets are biased to a greater or less extent.

What does bother me is that the BBC presents itself as impartial and does so while claiming its income via the threat of imprisonment.

That we require a government license to receive TV signals is ridiculous. That the proceeds of that licensing go towards propaganda is outrageous.

I thought the revelation of the salaries summed the BBC up. To them the controversy was not that huge amounts of public money was being paid to mediocre talent. They thought the controversy was one of diversity because not as many women as men earned bloated salaries.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
BB, do you know why the high street won't demise that soon? Because of old fashioned buggers like me that refuse to even embrace online home shopping. Done it once, got short dated crap. Never again! Plus I like the walk

I had the same debate with a friend. My answer was that my kids wouldn't dream of going to a shop unless they (the giris at least) do it for social reasons.

Retailers have very high break even points. They can't handle lost turnover, if you and the rest of us of a slightly more mature disposition carry on but the next generation don't, they're done. Big shops need volume, lot of fixed cost there. Not like warehouses and internet portals.

It won't be quite that simple, things don't tend to be. Retailers will try to adapt, they'll make alliances, mergers, change shape, but in the end their ruthless profiteering based on hegemony over access to consumers is ending. As someone who has sold directly to all of them I'd say it couldn't happen to nicer people.

Problem with portals though conversely too many variable costs and price pinch points. Total service provision with nothing created by themselves and hence willing to pay a premium and pass on that premium to their customer base and before you know it, your Crapita (Capita to those who don't know them). Now if you have a strong brand, the customers won't give a fig, however if like me you've seen many internet portal catastrophes, you tend not to embrace them as much or if you are a creature of habit, you won't shift in the general direction 

Problem with online shopping is that it still lacks the total shopping control experience. Yes it might save you the ordeal of driving and parking up, but as a customer we like to hold something (almost try before you buy) or sample it before taking the next step of making a purchase. Having that tangible feeling. Until something game changing that comes a long and changes that, most high street retailers will have a chance. Home media and guff like that likes of Game, HMV, Virgin shops will go. Clothes and sports retailers, supermarkets will go on for a while.

Todays society reminds me a lot like the film Surrogates. Scary thing is how close we are to that reclusive and non-engaging lifestyle, however like that film ended. First step back outside is always the hardest.

HM Murdoch wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

The BBC is a wretched organisation but there are too many people who have a political interest in it for it to be successfully killed off.

Normally everything you post is measured and balanced; but on this one we will have to disagree- I think you are being very hyperbolic.
BBC is not perfect, but what has it done to deserve being called wretched.
If you think BBC News and Sky News are bad; go to the US and watch Fox News followed by MSNBC... BBC and SKY news aren't perfect but miles better than the ridiculous partisan crap of US TV news.

But the BBC is also partisan. It has a world view that it pushes very hard.

That in itself doesn't bother me. ALL media outlets are biased to a greater or less extent.

What does bother me is that the BBC presents itself as impartial and does so while claiming its income via the threat of imprisonment.

That we require a government license to receive TV signals is ridiculous. That the proceeds of that licensing go towards propaganda is outrageous.

I thought the revelation of the salaries summed the BBC up. To them the controversy was not that huge amounts of public money was being paid to mediocre talent. They thought the controversy was one of diversity because not as many women as men earned bloated salaries.

My understanding though is that the BBC pays less than its commercial equivalents. It's remit is presumably to present programming which will interest the population and surely it therefore needs to pay something around market rate to its key individuals?

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:They are awful, completely biased and full-on social engineering.

Hah.  So just like the website.  Focus on propaganda and masquerade as news outlet.  On public's dime to boot.

Even sites like Breitbart and Salon are better - at least they do not sell themselves as neutral.

Yes, this is what I find worst with the BBC. They are however no better than CNN or Fox (though I have not watched those latter for years).

Slippy wrote:My understanding though is that the BBC pays less than its commercial equivalents. It's remit is presumably to present programming which will interest the population and surely it therefore needs to pay something around market rate to its key individuals?

This is the argument that the BBC makes but it shows them wanting it both ways.
 
When it comes to paying salaries, they invoke the pressure of the commercial market. But when it comes to receiving income, they reject the commercial market and instead depend on a regressive tax levied with the threat of imprisonment.
 
If the BBC does not have to compete for ratings (surely the notional point of the license fee?), there is no need to pay £550k to a newsreader or £1.75m to the host of MOTD.
 
And as for the bloated, overpaid management structure.... I once heard it likened to the way that marsupials survived in Australia because they had no natural predators. In a similar way, there is nobody to look at the BBC management and ask "what do you actually do?".

Very reassuring to see so much intelligence in the posts here.

bogbrush wrote:Very reassuring to see so much intelligence in the posts here.

What's the negative form of reassure? Assure has unassured which can be used as an adjective but not a verb. Found a gap in the English language. Either way, time for me to do so

summerblues wrote:

Even sites like Breitbart and Salon are better

Bashing the BBC seems to be the new trendy thing to do these days, as Bogbrush said the 'reassurance of intelligence'.
But let's keep things real- I watch BBC news every day and to compare it to Breitbart and Salon is unjustifiable and beyond the pale.
I judge news on many criteria: quality of reporting, which stories are prioritised, which stories are buried, tone. BBC vs Breitbart and Salon is not even close.

summerblues wrote:
- at least they do not sell themselves as neutral.

I think you are making a big mistake here.
My friendship circles are people who are very left wing and very right wing and everywhere in between. More left wingers, but still more variety in opinion than the average for my demographic.
Unfortunately the new reality is when my left wing friends go to sites like Salon, their thought process is not 'this website looks obviously biased so let me take the stories in context.' Rather than that, they are already in a 'left wing' camp, and these websites to them just say the 'truth'. Some of my more left wing friends say that the Guardian has a right wing slant, so when they see news websites even more left wing and biased than a Guardian, they do not see a slant. Same as right wingers with Breitbart.
So the ability for Breitbart, Salon, Fox News etc. to completely distort reality in people's minds is very potent, and unfortunately the fact there is obvious bias gives them even more power, not less, as polarised groups see them as 'pure'.

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Very reassuring to see so much intelligence in the posts here.

What's the negative form of reassure? Assure has unassured which can be used as an adjective but not a verb. Found a gap in the English language. Either way, time for me to do so

Probably "disconcert", or perhaps "undermine".

It's not automatic that the addition of a prefix is required to create the opposite.

Criticism of the BBC is not in itself a badge of intelligence but expressing the arguments people made in the way they did was surely a strong indicator.

HM Murdoch wrote:
That in itself doesn't bother me. ALL media outlets are biased to a greater or less extent.

But that extent you are referring to matters, it matters a lot.
You've discussed politics with me before HM, so you will know I'm not very partisan when it comes to politics: not for an ideology, or for a political party and certainly not a person. I am open minded, and when I watch the news or read news articles, I take the context into account, critically analyse it, and then am open to changing my opinion based on what I've seen.
I have some views you'd consider left wing, and others that would be considered right wing. I don't really care about those labels.
But the extent the Daily Mail or Independent Online try to 'push' me in a certain direction is far greater than what the BBC do. The BBC is biased, but to a much smaller extent. Even Peter Hitchens said they were fair during the EU ref campaign, and he hates the BBC.
In the run up to the EU ref, the BBC coverage actually pushed me further to Leave side than Remain. Firstly in a very crucial time period few weeks before the referendum, for 2 days in a row the BBC news TV lead story was that net migration had gone up according to the latest figures. They could given it only a day or buried it as 4th story, but it was lead story.
And then when the George Osborne 'punishment budget' was proposed, they could have tactically seen it as just another economic story, got in their economics editor and started talking about the pros and cons in terms of economic impact (as they usually do when a budget or economic proposal is put forward). But they didn't, they immediately called it out as a political stunt by making clear the context was political, and then had a debate on the very intentions of why Osborne did that. After the segment I was left thinking how manipulative Osborne and the Remain campaign was.

Perhaps we can do a challenge, you can do analysis of BBC, and I can do analysis of Breitbart or Daily Mail front page- show me the bias and the extent of the bias.

Nobody is debating relative bias levels Amrit, the criticism is the pretense of no bias, which arguably makes the bias insidious. You could hardly accuse Breitbart of that.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Slippy wrote:My understanding though is that the BBC pays less than its commercial equivalents. It's remit is presumably to present programming which will interest the population and surely it therefore needs to pay something around market rate to its key individuals?

This is the argument that the BBC makes but it shows them wanting it both ways.
 
When it comes to paying salaries, they invoke the pressure of the commercial market. But when it comes to receiving income, they reject the commercial market and instead depend on a regressive tax levied with the threat of imprisonment.
 
If the BBC does not have to compete for ratings (surely the notional point of the license fee?), there is no need to pay £550k to a newsreader or £1.75m to the host of MOTD.
 
And as for the bloated, overpaid management structure.... I once heard it likened to the way that marsupials survived in Australia because they had no natural predators. In a similar way, there is nobody to look at the BBC management and ask "what do you actually do?".

I'm not sure I see an inherent inconsistency here. The BBC garners income through public funding. It's fair enough to disagree with that but I would have thought the question is one for the government. It would presumably need to be a political decision to remove funding from the BBC. It can't properly compete commercially at present as it can't advertise, which is obviously where the commercial channels obtain a lot of their capital. 

Given it does receive funding, the BBC needs to comply with its charter which includes providing high quality news coverage and entertainment. To do that, it seems to me it needs to be able to pay somewhere near market rate. So long as it is not overpaying, I don't feel there can be too much complaint. 

Personally, I think the BBC does a reasonable job. It's not perfect and it wouldn't be a huge loss in the modern age but the quality and variety of programming it provides seems reasonable to me. I also think it at least tries to keep a neutral tone in its reporting. Falls to me into a category of being fairly inoffensive.

bogbrush wrote:Nobody is debating relative bias levels Amrit, the criticism is the pretense of no bias, which arguably makes the bias insidious. You could hardly accuse Breitbart of that.

Yeah but I addressed that to Summerblues; politics has become so partisan these days that people don't see very partisan sites which already agree with their opinion as biased. If fans of Salon think Salon is a very honest outlet which exposes the truth, the fact they are more outwardly partisan and thus more 'pure' actually makes them more potent in impact of messaging.

Irrespective of whether the BBC is perfect, I think it's important we have a news outlet that is funded by other ways than sponsorship which can affect content:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

DECIMA wrote:Irrespective of whether the BBC is perfect, I think it's important we have a news outlet that is funded by other ways than sponsorship which can affect content:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

How on Earth compulsory fees, under threat of improsonmnt, for the possession and use of a radio receiving device -regardless of application to BBC channels - counts as better is beyond me.

If it was happening in North Korea we'd laughing ourselves silly.

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:Irrespective of whether the BBC is perfect, I think it's important we have a news outlet that is funded by other ways than sponsorship which can affect content:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

How on Earth compulsory fees, under threat of improsonmnt, for the possession and use of a radio receiving device -regardless of application to BBC channels - counts as better is beyond me.

If it was happening in North Korea we'd laughing ourselves silly.

You're being overdramatic, it's basically a TV tax.
How else can we have a news channel funded without the sort of problems addressed in the article I linked?

Slippy wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

Slippy wrote:My understanding though is that the BBC pays less than its commercial equivalents. It's remit is presumably to present programming which will interest the population and surely it therefore needs to pay something around market rate to its key individuals?

This is the argument that the BBC makes but it shows them wanting it both ways.
 
When it comes to paying salaries, they invoke the pressure of the commercial market. But when it comes to receiving income, they reject the commercial market and instead depend on a regressive tax levied with the threat of imprisonment.
 
If the BBC does not have to compete for ratings (surely the notional point of the license fee?), there is no need to pay £550k to a newsreader or £1.75m to the host of MOTD.
 
And as for the bloated, overpaid management structure.... I once heard it likened to the way that marsupials survived in Australia because they had no natural predators. In a similar way, there is nobody to look at the BBC management and ask "what do you actually do?".

I'm not sure I see an inherent inconsistency here. The BBC garners income through public funding. It's fair enough to disagree with that but I would have thought the question is one for the government. It would presumably need to be a political decision to remove funding from the BBC. It can't properly compete commercially at present as it can't advertise, which is obviously where the commercial channels obtain a lot of their capital. 

Given it does receive funding, the BBC needs to comply with its charter which includes providing high quality news coverage and entertainment. To do that, it seems to me it needs to be able to pay somewhere near market rate. So long as it is not overpaying, I don't feel there can be too much complaint. 

Personally, I think the BBC does a reasonable job. It's not perfect and it wouldn't be a huge loss in the modern age but the quality and variety of programming it provides seems reasonable to me. I also think it at least tries to keep a neutral tone in its reporting. Falls to me into a category of being fairly inoffensive.

Doesn't advertise? You kidding? The BBC advertises the BBC relentlessly.

And if you think the BBC is neutral you're not paying attention.

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:Irrespective of whether the BBC is perfect, I think it's important we have a news outlet that is funded by other ways than sponsorship which can affect content:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

How on Earth compulsory fees, under threat of improsonmnt, for the possession and use of a radio receiving device -regardless of application to BBC channels - counts as better is beyond me.

If it was happening in North Korea we'd laughing ourselves silly.

You're being overdramatic, it's basically a TV tax.
How else can we have a news channel funded without the sort of problems addressed in the article I linked?

Actually I'm simply stating a fact. You want to own and use a receiving device? You pay the BBC. If you don't, you go to Court for a criminal offense. It's not a tax, the money doesn't go to the State it goes to the BBC.

How else can you fund it? Couldn't give a shit actually, but let's start with not prohibiting use of a device without payment of a fee to an organisation that has no hand in the production or supply of the device, or which you might not wish to use to receive their output.
You like BBC news? Pay to watch it.

The BBC is awful. 

On the issue at hand. The problem is with fragmented subscription requiring multiple subscriptions and whether this is a move towards that.

I can envisage a situation where one would require a different subscription for the regular men's tour, a separate subscription for the WTA on a different platform, and a different subscription for the slams etc.

DECIMA wrote:
Perhaps we can do a challenge, you can do analysis of BBC, and I can do analysis of Breitbart or Daily Mail front page- show me the bias and the extent of the bias.

Not sure I have the enthusiasm for a big project (especially one that would entail lots of looking at the BBC!) but to make a couple of easy points:

"Despite Brexit"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37844837
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0532g1y
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37287239
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37893846

They made a decent job of impartiality during the referendum but they have nailed their colours very firmly to the mast since then.

This is something  I stumbled upon last week which I find rather insidious. They are BBC history videos for children on YouTube. The top left is described as a "typical Roman family" in Britain after the Roman invasion. Top right is the native Britons preparing to resist the Romans. Bottom left is a scene from Iron Age Britain. Bottom right shows the barons forcing King John to sign Magna Carta in 1215.




The BBC wishes to present these eras as being multicultural societies. This is, at best, a huge stretch and in the case of the Magna Carta one, utterly preposterous.

It's pure propaganda aimed at children. It's not an attempt to show "non-white" history because there is plenty of that available if they wished to explore it. This is grafting their modern preferences onto the past. It's Soviet style stuff!

Yep, utter garbage. For an institution that clings onto the  idea of it being there to inform it's positively Orwellian.

DECIMA wrote:I watch BBC news every day and to compare it to Breitbart and Salon is unjustifiable and beyond the pale.

I will mostly duplicate what bb already said:  Of course BBC is not as biased as Breitbart or Salon.  The difference is that Breitbart and Salon are meant to be propaganda, and that is what you get - no problem there.  BBC is meant to be impartial, and yet you still get propaganda.

Much like HMM, I am not planning to bother to try to "prove" anything but I think the example with Roman family etc he gave is a good one.  Or more generally on the topic of diversity: like with anything, there will be pros and cons to diversity.  Do you honestly believe BBC is equally happy to report arguments against the benefits of diversity as the arguments for diversity?  If so then, as they say here, I have a nice oceanfront property in Idaho that I could sell to you.

HM Murdoch wrote:
Not sure I have the enthusiasm for a big project (especially one that would entail lots of looking at the BBC!) but to make a couple of easy points:

"Despite Brexit"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37844837
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0532g1y
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37287239
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37893846

They made a decent job of impartiality during the referendum but they have nailed their colours very firmly to the mast since then.

OK firstly to declare my bias, I voted Remain in the EU Referendum, but if there was a referendum now I would vote to Leave; I have changed my mind due to various reasons.
Now looking at the links you gave, I'm sorry but a lot of those are completely valid.
Due to Brexit, and the currency changes it caused, there was a clear correlation with downside in construction industry, imported inflation affecting food and drink, and even Nigel Farage would admit that it obviously would cause problems for Ryanair. The headline I disagreed with was the one on consumer confidence, as many factors could affect that.
Just because the majority of people voted for something, doesn't mean that we have to pretend it can't have negative consequences on the construction industry or airlines flying to Europe, that is more Orwellian demand.

HM Murdoch wrote:
https://i.servimg.com/u/f11/19/74/87/79/bbc_hi10.jpg

I'm with you on this one- wrong of the BBC as it's clearly historically inaccurate.
But seriously the harm caused by this or anything similar will not be that great. If a left winger was complaining about a cartoon in a similar way they would be called 'snowflakes' by right wingers.
60 years ago in Britain there were 'No blacks' signs outside many shops, and children were growing up seeing that and clear racism normalised. Now black people don't have to face those signs outside shops, and the BBC have wrongly created the impression black people were part of British society in ancient times. Take it in some perspective.

summerblues wrote:
I will mostly duplicate what bb already said:  Of course BBC is not as biased as Breitbart or Salon.  The difference is that Breitbart and Salon are meant to be propaganda, and that is what you get - no problem there.  BBC is meant to be impartial, and yet you still get propaganda.

OK I have addressed this point twice before but we had many posts so your perhaps missed it.
Politics has become very polarised and partisan these days. People have put themselves into different camps with certain ideology. When left wingers see Salon, they don't see bias, they see the truth as it is. When right wingers see Breitbart, they see a news outlet finally saying the truth. The fact both these sides are obviously biased is no longer a protection against its influence, if not anything it means the propaganda has more potency as people see them as 'pure'.

summerblues wrote:
Or more generally on the topic of diversity: like with anything, there will be pros and cons to diversity.  Do you honestly believe BBC is equally happy to report arguments against the benefits of diversity as the arguments for diversity?  

The BBC does have its biases, and I will agree here- you've certainly spotted one as they would not report the pros and cons in the example you raised in a balanced manner.
A lot of that may have to do with the demographic of the staff working at BBC news. There is a lot of polling done, and those who went to university have certain views on diversity. Most BBC staff are in this demographic. Doesn't mean they're right.
Also a few decades ago in the UK, racism was very prevalent, and the argument against diversity at that time was based on bigotry. Racism is a much smaller problem now, but surely you can understand why people may not have malicious intent (cultural marxism social engineering etc!) when being very cautious publicly discussing the reasons against diversity. Of course many of the reasons are non racist and legitimate (I have right wing views on immigration), but the historical legacy and remnants of racism remain.

To the main discussion, what you're not acknowledging enough is the extent to which news organisations push their beliefs onto viewers.
I watch BBC news everyday (unlike US there's only really 2 news channels on TV, and I prefer BBC to Sky)- and I can simply not remember a single time where the lead story was something that would attempt to change my mind on diversity.
I can remember many times where immigration numbers being over the government's target has been the lead story (by the way, framing immigration as something the government has failed on by not stopping high numbers means BBC indirectly casts immigration as a negative- though gov can be blamed more than BBC for that). To be honest, the fact they lead with immigration numbers being high and subtly reinforce it as a negative by the way its presented means I'd say BBC has influenced me more towards policies and parties that are tougher on immigration, than it has made me pro diversity. That is not to say SB is wrong in the premise he gave.
Anyway to the point, as a daily BBC viewer I can't remember last time they put on pro-diversity propaganda, and certainly not as leading the coverage. Meanwhile far more frequently will there be lead stories from the Daily Mail and Daily Express railing against immigrants. A Sun columnist referred to migrants as 'cockroaches'.

DECIMA wrote:
To the main discussion, what you're not acknowledging enough is the extent to which news organisations push their beliefs onto viewers.
I watch BBC news everyday (unlike US there's only really 2 news channels on TV, and I prefer BBC to Sky)- and I can simply not remember a single time where the lead story was something that would attempt to change my mind on diversity.
I can remember many times where immigration numbers being over the government's target has been the lead story (by the way, framing immigration as something the government has failed on by not stopping high numbers means BBC indirectly casts immigration as a negative- though gov can be blamed more than BBC for that). To be honest, the fact they lead with immigration numbers being high and subtly reinforce it as a negative by the way its presented means I'd say BBC has influenced me more towards policies and parties that are tougher on immigration, than it has made me pro diversity. That is not to say SB is wrong in the premise he gave.
Anyway to the point, as a daily BBC viewer I can't remember last time they put on pro-diversity propaganda, and certainly not as leading the coverage. Meanwhile far more frequently will there be lead stories from the Daily Mail and Daily Express railing against immigrants. A Sun columnist referred to migrants as 'cockroaches'.

As a daily BBC viewer one does not realise how much one's views are influenced by it. One is, without knowing it, formatted as a "well balanced" thinker....when one is actually brainwashed in favour of the "Establishement", corporations, or simply those who have money and power.

Things have got much worse over the last 2 decades to the point of being grotesque, yet masses swallow it.

Decima wrote:Just because the majority of people voted for something, doesn't mean that we have to pretend it can't have negative consequences on the construction industry or airlines flying to Europe, that is more Orwellian demand. 

It's entirely appropriate for the BBC to scrutinise the reality of Brexit. They should not be a mouthpiece for the government.

But its tone is entirely "bad news is due to Brexit, good news is despite Brexit". 

Brexit carries risk but it also carries opportunity. The BBC claims its mission is to "inform, educate, entertain". They don't inform or educate when they are so one-sided.

Incidentally, why did you change your mind about leave/remain? I don't think I know of anyone else who has changed their mind on the issue!

Decima wrote:60 years ago in Britain there were 'No blacks' signs outside many shops, and children were growing up seeing that and clear racism normalised. Now black people don't have to face those signs outside shops, and the BBC have wrongly created the impression black people were part of British society in ancient times. Take it in some perspective.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, a bit of historical inaccuracy in an animation is not in itself a massive issue.

But the principle is a worrying one.

They surely don't think that society really looked liked that, so somebody must have taken a deliberate decision to present it in that way. Bear in mind too that it purports to be an educational video.

If they are casual about accuracy here in support of their agenda, why should we think they are more accurate in other areas?

People, hear it from me...ditch TV licences. It's legal.
You can have a tv set and watch dvds etc fine...

There is nothing worth seeing on it, www. is so much better.

TV is a waste of life!

HM Murdoch wrote:

But its tone is entirely "bad news is due to Brexit, good news is despite Brexit". 

Brexit carries risk but it also carries opportunity. The BBC claims its mission is to "inform, educate, entertain". They don't inform or educate when they are so one-sided.

But so far, the impact of Brexit so far has been net negative, while the potential positive impact will potentially happen in the future. Surely being objective you can see that? The very nature of a change like this in exiting a free trade deal would mean in the short term it would be an economic harm.
There are a few industries which have been benefitted already by Brexit such as British tourism and the BBC have reported that. But some of the main potential gains, such as a controlled immigration system and trade deals with countries outside the EU, are yet to happen; and the BBC can't randomly start reporting things which have not happened and may not happen to appease Brexit voters, sorry.

Incidentally, why did you change your mind about leave/remain? I don't think I know of anyone else who has changed their mind on the issue!

I thought there were legitimate points on both sides before the EU ref, but the potential risk of leaving swayed me before the campaign. But now we are a year in, and I don't believe the risk is as bad as I thought.

HM Murdoch wrote:
They surely don't think that society really looked liked that, so somebody must have taken a deliberate decision to present it in that way.

Yeah I agree, it's probably a calculated decision that showing black people were part of British society will help next generation to be less racist than before. The fact it's a historical inaccuracy means it's unjustifiable for me- but taken in the context of how black people were systematically victims of widespread racism 50 years ago and still face some (lot less) racism today, the intentions of this is not some unthinkable crime.

BBC News TV is a more reliable source of information, and the information is presented in a more balanced way than every single other mainstream news source I can think of: Sky News TV, Sun, Daily Mail, Guardian, Times, Telegraph, Independent, InfoWars- in fact name me a better prominent news source.
I think your problems with the way BBC raise revenue has either consciously or subconsciously clouded your judgement on how BBC News TV is compared to the others.

According to the BBC, this is Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester. He was a Norman nobleman who who fought alongside William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.

You can't remember the last time they

- steered representation on screen to give false impressions of the average mixture of the U.K.?
- falsified educational information (see Murdoch info above)
- uncritically reported the Mediterranean inflow as a refugee crisis rather than the people trafficking crime wave it is.
- refused to speculate on the motives of just about every Muslim terror attack whilst jumping all over any alleged 'hate crime'
- edited the eyewitness report of a knife attack by three Muslim women to remove the statement that they were shouting "Alan's snackbar" and such.

It's hard to spot because it's relentless.

The impact of Brexit has not been net negative.

Please provide the negative impact. Employment us up, growth steady, inward investment high (including from all the banks and multi-bats who said they'd be leaving). 

Where are you getting that idea from? Oh hang on....

HM Murdoch wrote:According to the BBC, this is Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester. He was a Norman nobleman who who fought alongside William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.

If I was in charge I'd somehow make it clear that casting would be blind to race and so viewers should not infer any information about race from actors. I'd then happily cast white actors in black roles (I look forward to seeing Nelson Mandela played by a Chinese actor). 

On second thoughts, I think that might be a step too far!

HM Murdoch wrote:According to the BBC, this is Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester. He was a Norman nobleman who who fought alongside William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.

What?

Historically the UK was almost completely white, as you pointed out earlier in this thread when annoyed at the cartoon. So should we ban all black and brown people from playing any roles of anyone in a film or play set historically in the UK?
That's beyond the pale, and the fact you'd even use this shows your hysteria of BBC is clouding judgement.

bogbrush wrote:

Please provide the negative impact. Employment us up, growth steady, inward investment high (including from all the banks and multi-bats who said they'd be leaving). 

I didn't say it was a terrible negative impact, if you paid attention to my whole post I said that the risk from leaving was less than I had calculated to the point where I would now vote Leave if there was a second ref.
On the sectors in the links HM provided there is a clear correlation between June 23rd 2016 and a downturn: construction industry stock price, Ryanair and other airline stock price.
As for the three things you've talked about there; employment, economic growth, and inward investment- all three of those have gone up at a slower rate than before the referendum. Compare the year before june 2016 and the year after for these 3 metrics.
The benefits from leaving the EU are considerable, but the main ones are still to come, and would rely on some competence from our government too.

Against the wider picture I'd say all indicators at least as strong, especially after factoring the huge negative sentiment from all noises.

Regarding the social engineering side, the silly thing is that people don't need it, and constantly feeding the narrative as they do is a contributor to Victimhood Addiction Syndrome.

bogbrush wrote:

- steered representation on screen to give false impressions of the average mixture of the U.K.?
- falsified educational information (see Murdoch info above)
- uncritically reported the Mediterranean inflow as a refugee crisis rather than the people trafficking crime wave it is.
- refused to speculate on the motives of just about every Muslim terror attack whilst jumping all over any alleged 'hate crime'

What do you mean by steered representation on screen? BBC news studios were in London, and then a lot of the staff moved to Manchester. Demographic in London and Manchester is mixed, which is what you see in BBC news anchors. You don't have evidence they are hiring on race rather than merit, you're sounding like those paranoid snowflake left wingers.
HM's thing I've discussed above.
Well actually BBC have said that the people sending them on boats are people trafficking, and I've seen debates on the BBC on whether taking them in is beneficial as it could motivate more to be sent in a similar fashion. So it hasn't been 'uncritically' reported given I've seen those debate exchanges including Hitchens many times.
'Refused to speculate on the motives of Muslim terror attack'- what are you talking about? They have made clear that every single radical Islamic terror attack is exactly that, and I've been watching the coverage. They obviously can't assume it unless police release a statement confirming it.
Honestly Bogbrush, I think your hatred of the BBC says more about your biases than it does about the BBC.

bogbrush wrote:
- edited the eyewitness report of a knife attack by three Muslim women to remove the statement that they were shouting "Alan's snackbar" and such.

This is very concerning, maybe there is a dodgy sponsorship deal between Alan's snackbars and the BBC?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/03/bbc-criticised-by-mps-and-job-applicants-over-training-placement/

Why not just do what normal people do, and treat everyone fairly on their merits and ignore background? I would only ever hire on merit.

My dislike of the BBC is primarily rooted in its funding system. All the other crap it goes in for (like Murdochs examples, which you haven't refuted) are a by product of that.

Don't go down that other line, it's stupid and unworthy.


PS You know what Alan's snackbar is don't you?