Watching Stuff online

[Psamathe]

I tend by default to avoid companies who advertise a lot (an automatic decision of mine).
Ian

Well most commercial broadcasters, including Sky, advertise a lot so avoid them by not having a TV. :lol:

I avoid companies that advertise a lot NOT broadcasters who carry adverts. I actually don't watch the ads (they are easy to skip over).

Ian

[pete75]

I tend by default to avoid companies who advertise a lot (an automatic decision of mine).
Ian

Well most commercial broadcasters, including Sky, advertise a lot so avoid them by not having a TV.

I avoid companies that advertise a lot NOT broadcasters who carry adverts. I actually don't watch the ads (they are easy to skip over).

Ian

What I meant was the commercial broadcasters advertise themselves a lot. Sky even go to the extent of sponsoring a cycle racing team for advertising purposes.

[Psamathe]

Well most commercial broadcasters, including Sky, advertise a lot so avoid them by not having a TV. :lol:

I avoid companies that advertise a lot NOT broadcasters who carry adverts. I actually don't watch the ads (they are easy to skip over).

Ian

What I meant was the commercial broadcasters advertise themselves a lot. Sky even go to the extent of sponsoring a cycle racing team for advertising purposes.

So I have a choice to subscribe to Sky or not. And if I decide not to subscribe I can still watch other TV without paying Sky (or contributing to their cycling Team).

But with the BBC I have no such choice. BBC have made decisions in the past that, had I had a choice would have stopped me subscribing. But I have no choice if I wish to continue to own TV receiving equipment.

Ian

[meic]

It's time to straighten out the mire that is news. When folk are bored of experts, when alt-news and alt-facts are considered 'ok' then we're all screwed.

We will be even more screwed when legislation or other actions are bought in to prevent "fake news".
Because the working definition of what is "fake" will just be that which the establishment doesnt like.

One of the liberating features of social media is it can short circuit out the control, censorship and misreporting of the established media. The same thing occurs when you support the grass roots movement like Jeremy Corbin, The Arab Spring, Hong Kong, Burma or China or when you dont support the grass roots Trump, Brexit.

If "fake news" was banned we could forget having any more of the explosive revelations like Watergate, Wikileaks etc.
As an example the long running campaigns about Orgreave and Hillsborough could have been closed down under any such rules.

[drossall]

What if you want to watch not BBC stuff - why should you be forced to pay for Channels you don't want to watch. Why should people not be forced to subscribe to Sky ?

Again, that's a question to ask of your elected representative, not a reason to opt out of obeying the law. If you opt out, you must allow everyone else to opt out of the laws that benefit you.

The only other option is the honourable tradition of dissent, where you take part in a mass protest to make your point. Something like 10,000 people all watching TV without a licence in Regent's Park. That's different from everyone picking and choosing which laws are convenient to obey.

It is after all only TV, not a matter of life and death.

[Psamathe]

What if you want to watch not BBC stuff - why should you be forced to pay for Channels you don't want to watch. Why should people not be forced to subscribe to Sky ?

Again, that's a question to ask of your elected representative, not a reason to opt out of obeying the law. If you opt out, you must allow everyone else to opt out of the laws that benefit you.

The only other option is the honourable tradition of dissent, where you take part in a mass protest to make your point. Something like 10,000 people all watching TV without a licence in Regent's Park. That's different from everyone picking and choosing which laws are convenient to obey.

It is after all only TV, not a matter of life and death.

I would agree in that we should obey the law (I do obey that law, though I strongly disagree with it).

I also agree that TV is not a matter of life and death, hence I was surprised by the comments like

Good point.

If NHS is paid for by The State, why not State Broadcasting?

But that said, in our modern society TV is a valuable tool and thus should be available - but it is TV that is valuable NOT the BBC. BBC is more optional as there are other broadcasters. Personally, when I occasionally see BBC News or Newsnight (when with my parents where they always watch it) I find these days it is bland and uninformative. Whilst C4 News has gone badly downhill, their reporters (rather than "front men/women") are good and the program is generally a lot more informative than BBC news.

So TV is valuable in todays society but the BBC is only one small aspect of that that should not be compulsory (any more than subscriptions to Sky or Netflix, etc. should be).

Ian

[PH]

I probably watched four or five hours of BBC television last year via iplayer and none since the rules changed. I can happily live without it, there's plenty of other free entertainment, or IMO better value, I sign up to Netflix in the winter months, £6 a month for three months.
I do think an independent none commercial news and information network is important, though I'm not sure the BBC always does a very good job of fulfilling that and I'm pretty certain the license fee isn't the right way to fund it. The explosion of information available, both broadcast and online is a two edged sword, depending on where you look it doesn't so much inform as confirm whatever you already believe. The US president regurgitating Fox News as his own is a prime example.

[kwackers]

It's time to straighten out the mire that is news. When folk are bored of experts, when alt-news and alt-facts are considered 'ok' then we're all screwed.

We will be even more screwed when legislation or other actions are bought in to prevent "fake news".
Because the working definition of what is "fake" will just be that which the establishment doesnt like.

One of the liberating features of social media is it can short circuit out the control, censorship and misreporting of the established media. The same thing occurs when you support the grass roots movement like Jeremy Corbin, The Arab Spring, Hong Kong, Burma or China or when you dont support the grass roots Trump, Brexit.

If "fake news" was banned we could forget having any more of the explosive revelations like Watergate, Wikileaks etc.
As an example the long running campaigns about Orgreave and Hillsborough could have been closed down under any such rules.

You miss my point. I want a proper news, one that's accountable and presents facts backed up by evidence.

Nothing we have as news at the moment counts as 'proper' in my view, although my main complaint about the beeb is the lack of depth more than it's editorial bias.

My real beef is stuff that presented as fact without any evidence as such, perhaps another solution is to make news providers more accountable for facts. If they can't prove it they print a retraction - with the same prominence as the original article.

As for social media, I think it's a dogs dinner. All it seems to be doing at the moment is polarising views be it brexit or Trump. Both sides are making stuff up as they go along with the resultant increase in polarisation it brings. An awful lot of what is written doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Even Wikileaks seems be used as a pawn in the game, the number of times I see something quoted as being in Wikileaks when it isn't or taken completely out of context.

In some ways I quite like the terms alt-news and alt-facts because if nothing else they push the idea into the public consciousness that perhaps not all of what they read can be trusted although sadly both sides seem to take that as meaning the other side...

Back to tidying my workshop.
In the post Trump world the ability to mend and make stuff - particularly weapons, agricultural tools, engines etc is paramount.

[landsurfer]

You often feel that news is being generated by the News companies to fit in the gap between the adverts ...
Some of the headlines in the Guardian and Telegraph recently around cycling seem to be stoking up a fever that does not actually exist in the real world...
And as for that most anti cycling magazine of all .... Cycling Weekly .......lol
Our local evening news, Calendar always has an anti Brexit, anti police stance .... on every subject .... then you watch the main news desperately trying to balance every thing out .....
Have stopped reading the press and avoid the television news ..... lies and more smoke and mirrors ....

[meic]

You miss my point. I want a proper news, one that's accountable and presents facts backed up by evidence.

So how are you going to find that?

Two options exist
News that is regulated which will be perfect for censorship and control of the agenda,
or unregulated news where the truth can (often) be told but never found among the millions of wrong reports. Here the truth is hidden by spraying chaff all around it, rather than (always) banning it.

The best you can do is concentrate on multiple opposed sources, actual facts compared to interpretation and in-citation. Obvious give-aways are emotive language, extensive use of second hand and uncorroborated accounts to bias and stir your emotions. Reports which rely on your established viewpoint of the vilified inorder to see their actions in a negative way, when otherwise they would be perfectly reasonable.

If you can concentrate on the things that are factually verifiable and undisputed it helps to see the true picture and then see how well the facts really fit with the narrative.

[pete75]

I avoid companies that advertise a lot NOT broadcasters who carry adverts. I actually don't watch the ads (they are easy to skip over).

Ian

What I meant was the commercial broadcasters advertise themselves a lot. Sky even go to the extent of sponsoring a cycle racing team for advertising purposes.

So I have a choice to subscribe to Sky or not. And if I decide not to subscribe I can still watch other TV without paying Sky (or contributing to their cycling Team).

But with the BBC I have no such choice. BBC have made decisions in the past that, had I had a choice would have stopped me subscribing. But I have no choice if I wish to continue to own TV receiving equipment.

Ian

As your last sentence shows you do have a choice and have made it.

If you wish to have a TV you pay the licence fee unless you fall into one of the payment exempt categories. If you wish to own a car you pay VED unless it or you fall into one of the payment exempt categories. If you wish to drink whisky you pay excise duty etc etc. There are numerous taxes and quasi taxes that must be paid if one chooses a certain course of action. Don't choose it and you don't pay.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Hmmph.............

I'm with Psamathe on this.

As news broadcaster its very corrupt and very selective in what they call news.
Also they select who to put in the news, which buiss to promote or which charity etc, etc.
The other disturbing fact is that they have an obsession with children and who they show and how they get them to behave even in the past putting adult words into their mouths, I made a complaint (I have no idea why no other person could not see this fact)..........................it was halted almost next day and it had continued for a few years previous
Writing on boards beside the camera

We are taxed to watch TV, choice is not there, I would be happy to pay to watch which channel / program to watch but you have to pay the fee to watch any of it even though BBC has nowt to do with the other channels.
If it was any other broadcaster they would go out of business.
The Gov set the fee and control how the BBC is controlled.

I want to watch TV and I am quite happy with skipping the adds.
But gone are the days of BBC being the only channel to watch. I remember those days watching test cards with my twin, ITV was there but it did not appear when BBC started broadcasting, so must of started later in the day?

I like to be able to pick from many free channels and stuff the BBC but I cant unless I want to pay £50 a month, then I still need the licence fee

You cant watch anything broad unless you pay the fee.
I would find endless old soap series / TopGear / second rate films made for VHS / DVD boring.
Trawling though the web is tedious.

[JohnW]

Some people step over ill people in the street, who cares, does it matter?
Some people abuse women, who cares, does it matter?
Some people shop lift, who cares, does it matter?
Some people dont pay taxes, who cares, does it matter?............it is up to the individual and their morals.........................

+1 to that, Edwards.

[Psamathe]

What I meant was the commercial broadcasters advertise themselves a lot. Sky even go to the extent of sponsoring a cycle racing team for advertising purposes.

So I have a choice to subscribe to Sky or not. And if I decide not to subscribe I can still watch other TV without paying Sky (or contributing to their cycling Team).

But with the BBC I have no such choice. BBC have made decisions in the past that, had I had a choice would have stopped me subscribing. But I have no choice if I wish to continue to own TV receiving equipment.

Ian

As your last sentence shows you do have a choice and have made it.

If you wish to have a TV you pay the licence fee unless you fall into one of the payment exempt categories. If you wish to own a car you pay VED unless it or you fall into one of the payment exempt categories. If you wish to drink whisky you pay excise duty etc etc. There are numerous taxes and quasi taxes that must be paid if one chooses a certain course of action. Don't choose it and you don't pay.

Unfortunately analogies do not really hold well in this case e.g. I can chose to buy I can that is exempt from VED or I can chose to use a bike and not pay and still have transport. However, TV has become fairly central to society. People who have not had it for years (some here) don't want or need it but others (like myself) find it very useful (without the BBC). In the same way as some on here don't have a car and manage fine without one that does not mean it is sensible or practical for everybody to give up using a car.

The central issue is why subscribing to the BBC should be compulsory based on ownership of hardware devices that do many many other things quite legally legally. Particularly when those other things are useful and sought by many.

I can appreciate that some love the BBC and love it has no ads, if free from commercialisation, think it's content is good, etc. - none of which justifies compulsory subscription based on ownership of a bit of hardware. Those who love and value it can pay for it. In reality I think the compulsory subscription is a historical hang-up from the early days of TV when there was justifiable reason for there to be a "State Broadcaster". However, nobody has been able to justify the need for a "State Broadcaster" in todays society in the UK (or even what a "State Broadcaster" should do other than what seems to happen in practice - strive for ratings through competing with commercial channels with mainstream "me too" programs).

Ian

[pete75]

I can chose to use a bike and not pay and still have transport.

Yes and you can choose to read books for your entertainment and knowledge gathering and not pay and you can listen to the wireless for entertainment and news and not pay.