Proof that state-funded BBC kicks your ASS

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-24 03:13pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3177479.stm

Dyke to open up BBC archive

Greg Dyke predicts a more public-focused broadcasting future
Greg Dyke, director general of the BBC, has announced plans to give the public full access to all the corporation's programme archives.

Mr Dyke said on Sunday that everyone would in future be able to download BBC radio and TV programmes from the internet.

The service, the BBC Creative Archive, would be free and available to everyone, as long as they were not intending to use the material for commercial purposes, Mr Dyke added.

"The BBC probably has the best television library in the world," said Mr Dyke, who was speaking at the Edinburgh TV Festival.

"Up until now this huge resource has remained locked up, inaccessible to the public because there hasn't been an effective mechanism for distribution.

"But the digital revolution and broadband are changing all that.

"For the first time there is an easy and affordable way of making this treasure trove of BBC content available to all."

He predicted that everyone would benefit from the online archive, from people accessing the internet at home, children and adults using public libraries, to students at school and university.

Future focus

Mr Dyke appeared at the TV festival to give the Richard Dunn interview, one of the main events of the three-day industry event.

He said the new online service was part of the corporation's future, or "second phase", strategy for the development of digital technology.

Mr Dyke said he believed this second phase would see a shift of emphasis by broadcasters.

Their focus would move away from commercial considerations to providing "public value", he said.

"I believe that we are about to move into a second phase of the digital revolution, a phase which will be more about public than private value; about free, not pay services; about inclusivity, not exclusion.

"In particular, it will be about how public money can be combined with new digital technologies to transform everyone's lives."

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2003-08-24 04:02pm

Interestingly enough, there was an article in the Guardian yesterday about BskyB complaining that the BBC should not be allowed to keep Eastenders on, but should instead offer the rights up to it for sale, they also complained about BBC paying for the big movie premieres.

Personally I'm very happy with the BBC, frankly, out of the terrestrial channels (we still dont have Sky etc), BBC is the best - ITV is like the Tory party in that it is more or less a laughing stock in my book, C4 has some good stuff on occassionally but it still has that backwater image, and C5 is like a seedy dive half way along the top of my TV control panel. Or something.

It's all rather pointless really, because as long as the BBC remains state funded, it will maintain the air of 'Britishness - all us jolly chaps together', a sort of patriotism to the BBC which then ensures that it remains state funded because in the eyes of the public, it's as much a part of Britain as the monarchy or the pound (euro debate to one side).

IMO, anyway.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-24 05:40pm

Hahhahah so what?

The BBC is nothing but a state owned and run tool of Her Majesty's
Government that can be assfucked by HMG thanks to the Official
Secrecy Acts that were ushered in for WWI but never repealed

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-24 05:44pm

I still dislike the idea of having to pay a tax to own a TV so the BBC still sucks.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-08-24 05:46pm

Not to mention there's like 4 channels.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-08-24 05:59pm

MKSheppard wrote:Hahhahah so what?

The BBC is nothing but a state owned and run tool of Her Majesty's
Government that can be assfucked by HMG thanks to the Official
Secrecy Acts that were ushered in for WWI but never repealed

Yeah sure and that is why the government has been taking flak over Iraq's WMD (or lack of same) all based upon what the BBC has been saying, if the BBC was just the governments lap dog you suggest this wouldn't be the case.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-24 06:47pm

TheDarkling wrote: Yeah sure and that is why the government has been taking flak over Iraq's WMD (or lack of same) all based upon what the BBC has been saying, if the BBC was just the governments lap dog you suggest this wouldn't be the case.

Go look up the Pentagon Papers, and then ask yourself if that would ever
have been released by the BBC

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-08-24 07:24pm

MKSheppard wrote:
TheDarkling wrote: Yeah sure and that is why the government has been taking flak over Iraq's WMD (or lack of same) all based upon what the BBC has been saying, if the BBC was just the governments lap dog you suggest this wouldn't be the case.
Go look up the Pentagon Papers, and then ask yourself if that would ever
have been released by the BBC

Ahem, some of our own networks wouldn't show em either *cough* Fox News *cough*

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-08-24 11:58pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Not to mention there's like 4 channels.

.............

Only Four Channels?!?!

Okay, I might not watch all 76 channels my $80/month buys me, but I rather *like* being able to switch from local to SciFi to DISC to HIST to FOOD to VH1 and then back to TNT.

But then again, I'm American, I'm spoiled.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-25 12:31am

LadyTevar wrote:............ Only Four Channels?!?!

Okay, I might not watch all 76 channels my $80/month buys me, but I rather *like* being able to switch from local to SciFi to DISC to HIST to FOOD to VH1 and then back to TNT.

But then again, I'm American, I'm spoiled.

BBC is broadcast, remember. There arent terribly many actual broadcast stations in the US. You can still get satellite and shit.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-08-25 12:47am

kojikun wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:............ Only Four Channels?!?!

Okay, I might not watch all 76 channels my $80/month buys me, but I rather *like* being able to switch from local to SciFi to DISC to HIST to FOOD to VH1 and then back to TNT.

But then again, I'm American, I'm spoiled.
BBC is broadcast, remember. There arent terribly many actual broadcast stations in the US. You can still get satellite and shit.

*thinks*
You're right. If you don't have cable, you can't get anything other than the CBS, NBC, and ABC afflilates here in Charleston. Well, there's the local PBS station, and one WB afflilate that broadcasts from a town about 100 miles south, but they're fuzzy.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-08-25 02:49am

Vorlon1701 wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
TheDarkling wrote: Yeah sure and that is why the government has been taking flak over Iraq's WMD (or lack of same) all based upon what the BBC has been saying, if the BBC was just the governments lap dog you suggest this wouldn't be the case.
Go look up the Pentagon Papers, and then ask yourself if that would ever
have been released by the BBC
Ahem, some of our own networks wouldn't show em either *cough* Fox News *cough*

That would have been a real trick for FOX to release the Pentagon Papers considering that they were released back in the early 1970's.

I guess Fox didn't want President Nixon mad at them.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-25 05:45pm

LadyTevar wrote:*thinks*
You're right. If you don't have cable, you can't get anything other than the CBS, NBC, and ABC afflilates here in Charleston. Well, there's the local PBS station, and one WB afflilate that broadcasts from a town about 100 miles south, but they're fuzzy.

In the UK you pay for a TV license, but the stations have no subscription fee, and theres no commercials. Honestly, I think its a better deal. Its like $200/year for a TV, and when you think about it, thats cheap. less then $20 a month. Presently my houses cable bill is $200 a MONTH.

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2003-08-25 07:12pm

kojikun wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:*thinks*
You're right. If you don't have cable, you can't get anything other than the CBS, NBC, and ABC afflilates here in Charleston. Well, there's the local PBS station, and one WB afflilate that broadcasts from a town about 100 miles south, but they're fuzzy.
In the UK you pay for a TV license, but the stations have no subscription fee, and theres no commercials. Honestly, I think its a better deal. Its like $200/year for a TV, and when you think about it, thats cheap. less then $20 a month. Presently my houses cable bill is $200 a MONTH.

You only get 2 BBC channels. Well there's BBC 3 but I don't think that's widely available, I know I don't have it. Oh yeah and the News one, but that's only available if you have cable or satellite.

Tatterdemalion · Post by **Tatterdemalion** » 2003-08-25 09:10pm

It also pays for a bunch of radio stations too. Personally I think it's a good deal, especially if you look at the five minute long commercial breaks on the Murdoch owned channels. (Incidentily I think Rupert Murdoch is the antichrist, in a strictly non-religious way..)