PDA

View Full Version : Have I GotLiddle News For You


Send Clowns
23rd Oct 2002, 18:52
Been a bit busy so this is too late to be topical, but did anyone see Rod Liddle, the man the BBC claim was not biased editing "Today", on "Have I Got News For You?" last weekend?

Did you find that not only did he not say much but when he did it was not remotely amusing, just nasty, snide and arrogant? It is rare that I have seen anyone so pompous and self-righteous on television (except in interviews of pressure-group spokesmen) with so little reason. I would have thought that "Today" would be glad he has moved on, but how did someone so small-minded and vindictive ever get that job?

Christine Hamilton, though she is apparently on TV far too much at the moment (I don't watch much) was at least somewhat amusing and self-depracating, and only spoke crossly about Fayed, a man who has much wronged her, even when the subject of Liddle's spite and the others' jokes.

Cuddles
23rd Oct 2002, 19:28
Yeah, I saw it, he came across as someone who was trying to appear to be really cool.

However, he only came across as a complete juan kerr.

Jet II
24th Oct 2002, 08:24
I thought he was typical of the type of person who now works for the Blair Broadcasting Corporation.

I see that there is now a campaign in the Telegraph.(Daily Telegraph) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/10/23/do2301.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2002/10/23/ixopinion.html) to get rid of the TV Licence - not a moment too soon. I seem to remember a few years ago an American reporter was in Times Square asking passers-by 'What do you need a licence for?' - there were the usual replies, drive a car, own a gun, fly a plane, go hunting, etc. etc.

When the reporter told them that the British needed a Licence to watch the telly no-one believed him.

The time has come to scrap the BBC and get into the real world.

Grainger
24th Oct 2002, 09:11
Funny how many of those objecting to the TV licence are quite happy to pay hundreds of quid for satellite and cable channels festooned with adverts. :confused:

Mind you there's too many adverts on the BBC these days :mad:

IFTB
24th Oct 2002, 09:19
What is this bitching against the UK tv licence about?
I know about at least 2 other European countries who have a TV licence system, also with mediocer broadcastings.
Maybe the US is the only place you do not require a tv licence?

If so, what was your point??

WeatherJinx
24th Oct 2002, 10:26
Nice to see Tory Boy on his favourite soapbox again:D

newswatcher
24th Oct 2002, 12:36
Two things - it is reported that CH actually said far more about "disgraced" host AD to his face, than was actually broadcast. The BBC say that recording the programme lasts more than 30 minutes, and so they have to make some cuts. Hmmmmm!

And getting on to my pedant's podium, the license is actually to operate any equipment which has the capability"...to receive or record television programme services", not just to watch telly. Which is why people who argue that they never watch "live" TV, and only use their TV to watch Videos, will never succeed! Likewise, to have a TV card in your PC, is no excuse either!

Select Zone Five
24th Oct 2002, 12:52
I seem to find more to watch on BBC2 and Channel 4. So why do BBC1 and ITV pull in the major viewing figures? Is it all down to the dodgy soaps?

Eastenders - seems far too depressing to be entertaining (shocking acting, why so popular when the acting is soooooo bad?)
Coronation Street - seems far too boring to be entertaining
Emmerdale - never watched it but seems pretty dull

The only thing I watch on ITV is the F1 and that's because the BBC lost the rights because they'd rather spend our money on dodgy soaps and cookery programmes than live sporting action :mad:

I seem to have gone of at a tangent...but I feel better now, thanks.

solotk
24th Oct 2002, 13:05
Nice to see Tory Boy on his favourite soapbox again

.....and I thought it was only me that had visions of Harry Enfield's character, every time I read one of his posts...... :D

BahrainLad
24th Oct 2002, 13:32
I've been a lifelong Telegraph reader but I'm increasingly disappointed at how out of touch from current Britain they are becoming.

The recent licence fee rant is a superb example. I would have thought that the recent ITV Digital debacle would have shown that commercial broadcasters are subject to commercial pressures and that's why ITV pumped all their money into minor football that they thought (wrongly) that everyone wanted. It's also why you get Popstars drivel, I'm a Celebrity etc.

The BBC can be innovative and take risks becuase it has a guaranteed income. If a commercial channel takes risks and looses, it looses ad revenue. If the BBC were a commercial channel we would never have comedy such as The Office.

The UK now has one of the world's most advanced TV systems, in part thanks to the BBC. If you watch BBC4 in widescreen, use the Interactive services and follow it all up with BBCi, be thankful. Handing it all over to Sky or ITV would make the TV in the UK as crap as it is the US!

Jet II
24th Oct 2002, 15:34
The point about the BBC Licence is that it is another tax - that means that even if you never want to watch all the 'Quality' programs on it like Eastenders, Casualty, Airport, Holby City, Fame Academy, etc. etc. etc. Or listen to Radio 1, Radio Bristol, Radio Wiltshire Sound? etc. etc. you still have to pay for it whether you want to or not.

Yes I pay a fee to Murdoch for his Sky satellite system, but that is MY choice.

I also watch a lot of what BahrainLad thinks of as American crap, such as The West Wing, ER, CSI, Law and Order, Band of Brothers, Six Feet Under and so on.

BahrainLad also thinks that BBC4, BBCI and the Interactive stuff is great - fine so if you like it so much you won't have any problem with paying for what you use and leave the rest of us out of it.

As I said before - its all down to personal choice, something that is becoming increasingly rare in the UK these days.

WeatherJinx
24th Oct 2002, 16:29
Jet II

Ah, personal choice...the old standby of the so-called economic libertarians...

Why should the BBC be forced to drop its source of funding (justified most articulately elsewhere on this thread), in order to satisfy the whims of megalopolist media owners, all of whom are foreigners?

Why should we drop our standards when, judging by much of the utter crap on cable/satellite t.v., it is they who should be raising theirs? Most Britons agree with the licence fee and so do the Government (including past Tory administrations). Conrad and Murdoch et. al should put up or shut up.

The BBC is the best broadcaster in the world, bar none and the public service broadcasting ethos remains a valuable alternative in an increasingly free-market world (for which read mainly game shows, celebs makeovers and showbiz gossip). Why fix something that clearly isn't broken?

Jx

Incidentally, you can see CSI, Law& Order etc. = (both good quality TV) on C5, a free-to-air terrestrial channel.

Send Clowns
24th Oct 2002, 16:59
Interesting to see that WeatherJinx and solotk still have nothing meaningful to contribute. As usual, instead of addressing the issue (which is the nastiness, bigotry and arrogance of Rod Liddle in relation to BBC employment policy) they like typical Blair Babes attack a completely different issue in a small-minded way. :rolleyes: Mmmmm, I think I know who I would compare to a petty bigot with ill-formed political opinions, like the Enfield character.

Did you chaps actually watch the programme? Perhaps you would like to tell us what you thought of Liddle.

BahrainLad
24th Oct 2002, 17:19
Jet II, I would add Fraiser to your list. (You've also shot yourself in the foot, as "Band of Brothers" was in fact a BBC/HBO co-operation....but I'll let you off). There can be no denying that there is high-quality television from the US, but in terms of the total television output, the overwhelming majority is crap such as Springer, "When animals attack" etc. Turn the UK TV system over to people under commercial pressure and you have the same situation (again, look at ITV).

Choice? With Sky? Isn't it Sky that structure the payment system so that if you want the 'Premium' channels such as Sports, you have to buy the family pack as well, if you buy 1 Sports channel you have to buy them all (as they never keep football on 1, golf on 2 etc.) etc. So basically you have to spend 37 a month. A lot of choice there!




Still got it though........but watch the Beeb the most!

Jet II
24th Oct 2002, 17:27
WeatherJinx

Why should the BBC be forced to drop its source of funding, in order to satisfy the whims of megalopolist media owners

I think that you will find that the owners of the commercial channels do not want the BBC to change its funding arrangements and compete for scarce advertising revenue - its only the hard-pressed taxpayer who wants some releif from ever increasing taxes.

The BBC is the best broadcaster in the world, bar none and the public service broadcasting ethos remains a valuable alternative in an increasingly free-market world (for which read mainly game shows, celebs makeovers and showbiz gossip). Why fix something that clearly isn't broken?

The BBC has been chasing the market down for years to justify its ratings and therefore its Licence Fee. The Channel 4 news is far superior to anything the Beeb puts out and how can you say that shows like Holby City, Fame Academy, etc. are quality programming that isn't available on the commercial networks beats me.

I also noted this morning on Radio 4 that not much has changed since Liddle left - there was an item on the resignation of Estelle Morris and Humphry's attacked the Tory spokesman over her going yet fawned like he was after a Knighthood when the Labour guy came on.

The BBC lost all Public Service Ethos when it became the plaything of Tony and his cronies, Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies.

WeatherJinx
24th Oct 2002, 17:38
come now Clowns, lighten up... I always thought you could take a bit of a ribbing :p

BTW what does it matter what Liddle was like? The world is full of nasty, small minded, arrogant people from all political persuasions (the media having a fairer share than most). It hasn't affected the output of the programme itself one iota - you and I both continue to tune, in don't we?

What we all know, however, is that you wouldn't be so quick to criticise if was a staffer on the Torygraph we were talking about, or anyone else of your own political persuasion - and you don't have to look too far in that direction to find a whole bunch of people who would fit that description just as neatly. And you infer that I'm bigoted?

Jx

Send Clowns
24th Oct 2002, 17:39
P.S. Though I would dislike them using my money for political propoganda, either pro-Blair and pro-EU as is currently the case or with any bias, I still think the TV licence is appropriate. However the money should not be used for new digital and general internet services, duplicating material easily available from other sources (did we really need another 24-hour news channel or another website of news and links? (web material supporting TV and radio programming makes sense)). The political balance should be more accountable - they will not tell me to whom I may complain, even after I emailed.

rnobson
24th Oct 2002, 18:21
only 1 thing worse than 4 useless channels with nowt on...

That;s 72 channels with nowt on !!!

Send Clowns
24th Oct 2002, 18:56
OK, Jinx :D

Indeed I still tune in to Today. However I do get irritated with its political bias - I use it to balance my reading of the Telegraph. I would suggest he has affected its content though. The fact that they gave no coverage to the largest political demonstration ever in this country, and then he goes on to sneer at its participants, with prejudice and spite is somewhat telling ...

Clearly I would not so complain about a Tory staffer's political opinion. I know most are Conservative with a few from each broad political angle. I pay for that - I do not wish to pay for Labour propoganda to be broadcast as unbiased reporting. I would be equally concerned if the BBC became pro-Tory. The fact is it is pro-Labour, pro-Euro, pro-Sinn Fein (often), pro-"Liberal", pro-whigers, anti-hunting. These political positions are at odds with the BBC's charter and their defense of a licence fee. They cannot defend their position while run by admitted Labour supporters with a Labour supporter as political editor and Jeremy Paxman as an important interviewer.

However had a Tory staffer behaved in the same way as Liddle on "Have I got News ..." then I would have been equally dismissive - the programme is for light-hearted, amusing banter, not the snide nastiness of a man in love with himself. The last Telegraph columnist I saw on there (Boris Johnson MP) was his usual relaxed self, slightly bemused by some aspects of modern culture but took the jokes well and was a benefit to the program, not a detriment.

reynoldsno1
24th Oct 2002, 20:32
New Zealand recently scrapped its licence fee.
I lived with American cable TV for a number of years, and once you have sorted out which channels show the sort of thing you want, it was wonderful.
The BBC also produce some wonderful programmes, but I wouldn't put them on any sort of pedestal.
If you are paying the amounts mentioned for SKY, yep, you are allowing yourself to be ripped off.... but that's the UK for you.

Mylo
25th Oct 2002, 13:11
Without the licence fee, how else could the BBC afford to broadcast cutting edge sport like erm snooker, bowls, darts and the Scots and Welsh in the six nations!!?!