Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35765362)

Well it won't make any difference to me what channels it is on as l don't watch such over-rated rubbish.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35765465)

It's just 'I hate the BBC' andy_m trying to find something that he thinks will reflect badly on the BBC. It doesn't of course; the BBC buys in loads of content made by other companies.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35765500)

Actually I think it's more desperate from BT than the BBC, but I am disappointed that this will be used to reflect the BBC's "commitment to sport" which, in my opinion, is actually just something they pay lip service to.

And I don't "hate" the BBC. But, and we're going over old ground here, I don't watch it and I don't like the institutional bias in its news output, so I'd like the option of not having to pay for it.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35765500)

Actually I think it's more desperate from BT than the BBC, but I am disappointed that this will be used to reflect the BBC's "commitment to sport" which, in my opinion, is actually just something they pay lip service to.

And I don't "hate" the BBC. But, and we're going over old ground here, I don't watch it and I don't like the institutional bias in its news output, so I'd like the option of not having to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35765519)

So how do you know it has institutional bias in its news output if you don't watch it Andy?...:D

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35765525)

Seriously, you have never watched at least one series of anything in the past? No Generation game? no Big Break? no Top Gear? No Steptoe and Son, no Dad's Army, no Last of The Summer Wine? no Apprentice? no League of Gentlemen? no Alan Partridge? no Question of Sport, no Only Connect, no Mastermind? no FA cup when Palace have played? no Match of the day!?!

How could you have not watched any of the 2012 Olympics? The feel good mood of the country was awesome, thanks mainly to the BBC showing the Olympics FTA.


When was the last full year you went without watching or listening to something on the BBC or which was comissioned by the BBC? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014?

I don't watch VIVA, music channels, shopping channels etc. Can I petition VM not to pay for those? No, I have to accept that I have to help spread the cost for the others who do.

Oh, I don't smoke either. I would like the option not to pay for the medical costs attributed to those who do smoke. Where do I go to whinge about my tax concerns in this case? That's right, I can't. I do like a drink now and again, so can my money be put into research for drink related problems? No, that's right, it can't.

The BBC is and always will be a tax, it is as simple as that.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35765533)

They've admitted it.

---------- Post added at 06:10 ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 ----------



Yes, I watched the Olympics. But I have multi-channel television with both Of the major sport networks - I would have been able to watch the Olympics regardless of where they were shown. I can honestly say that whilst I've been responsible for paying the licence fee I haven't watched any of the shows you've listed.

You can petition all you like, but you have a choice to subscribe to them or not, so it's not quite the same thing.

I'm not really prepared to respond to an argument that equates serious medical complaints with telly.

The licence fee isn't a tax, but I don't like it - does the fact that you've listed some other things that are wrong mean I have to be quiet about it?

As far as the subject goes then I see this deal as an indication that BT aren't doing quite as well from a viewership and a revenue point of view as they would like and the innovation in this deal is the fact that now more people can watch it and they can earn some money from it.

---------- Post added at 06:19 ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 ----------

In 2006 senior figures admitted a "cultural liberal bias"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/yes-w...s-7088133.html

In 2010 the DG admitted a "massive bias to the left"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-c...s-6509105.html

In 2013 an internal report into impartiality found a "deep liberal bias"

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...as-immigration

This last report cost £175,000 of our money. The BBC, who commissioned the report and spent our money on it, dismissed it as merely having some "interesting insights".

Just in case anybody wants d me to provide sources for.my earlier post.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35765533)

As far as the subject goes then I see this deal as an indication that BT aren't doing quite as well from a viewership and a revenue point of view as they would like and the innovation in this deal is the fact that now more people can watch it and they can earn some money from it.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35765533)

This last report cost £175,000 of our money. The BBC, who commissioned the report and spent our money on it, dismissed it as merely having some "interesting insights".

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35765619)

My points were rhetorical, perhaps I should have mentioned that. They were not meant to cause debate.

Since you have mentioned it though, I can drop my package, but I lose my HD channels. The principle of the argument is the same. I have to pay for channels I don't watch watch. It's not a problem for me though, as I know many other people enjoy them.
Again, the smoking point was rhetorical, I know a number of smokers and I want them to stay as healthy as they can, for as long as they can. In theory though, I could use the argument that I am paying for a nhs service I have never used or intend to use - why should I pay for that service?

Nope, you can be as vocal as you want. I hope this does not mean I am not to allowed to challenge people on their views though?

Again, not looking to cause a debate on this, will welcome any further comments from your goodself though.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35765622)

I think one great advantage it gives the programme is that a rapidly-increased audience size should make it attractive to sporting personalities to appear on. As a new show, it started off with bundles of goodwill but to guarantee high calibre guests, it needed to up its ratings significantly. I think the money involved will be pretty insignificant compared to the benefits of increased viewership.

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

In fairness, that was commissioned by the BBC's regulator, the BBC Trust and not the BBC itself. In the future, Andrew Marr has suggested that regulation could be taken over by Ofcom. And the BBC itself did not dismiss it either. The article you linked to quotes a BBC spokesman as saying ""We agree it is always vital to guard against unconscious bias or 'group think' and will continue to do so and we've committed to a number of actions to improve our coverage even further." Committing to a number of actions is obviously not dismissing the report; I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35765649)

Mainly because they haven't set out what they are!

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35765649)

Re. your first point, insignificant or not, I am uncomfortable with an on going subscription channel being allowed a weekly half hour long advert on the national broadcaster and being paid public money for the privilege.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35765649)

Using the licence fee to pay for a full length repeat of a show broadcast the night before on a subscription channel is not the same as the BBC buying in content from private content producing companies.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35765732)

a quick check of the trustees register of interest shows that one trustee is married to a member of the BBC's news team, etc.

.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35765732)

If I'm honest I think you're splitting hairs a bit , at least in terms of this debate, in differentiating between the BBC and the BBC trust, although yes I recognise that they are separate bodies - however a quick check of the trustees register of interest shows that one trustee is married to a member of the BBC's news team, etc.

Either way, yes, fair enough, the report was done by the regulator, not the corporation.

Or in other words there have been admissions of bias by employees of the corporation, its executive AND its regulator. So, thanks for making that point for me, I guess.

As for the rest, like you say, we'll have to see when the programme airs.

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35766677)

Could the move to show Claire balding show a possible indicator that a cosy relationship is being built between BT and BBC and champions league football which BT promise to show one game for each English team could be shown on BBC?