NewsCorp destroys BBC

tr3mor

FTBFun wrote: »

I have Sky, so yes I do watch it occasionally.

It is The Day Today come true. But not as funny.

A news programme is a true version of a parody of a news programme? Who'd have thunked it?

Charlton_King

Threads like this throw up in more stark relief even than the bash-the-benefits ones the contrast between the relatively literate, educated and relatively compassionate posters on here who find BBC programming interesting...

... and the relatively, illiterate, uneducated and profoundly unpleasant tendency who actually think that the Sun and Mail are newspapers and who could not understand how the Labour vote held up so well at the last election...

PhylPho

Charlton_King wrote: »

Threads like this throw up in more stark relief even than the bash-the-benefits ones the contrast between the relatively literate, educated and relatively compassionate posters on here who find BBC programming interesting...

... and the relatively, illiterate, uneducated and profoundly unpleasant tendency who actually think that the Sun and Mail are newspapers and who could not understand how the Labour vote held up so well at the last election...

Er, the relatively literate have in recent posts not been discussing 'BBC programming' but how Sky News is supposed to be 'a Murdoch mouthpiece'. So it's been about a specific aspect of the BBC's expensive operation, not about programming as a generality.

I'm sure you know that the Daily Mail is not owned by Murdoch (and that its parent group loathes The Digger) so it's probably best not to link The Sun and the Mail together because there is an enduring distinction, viz:

* Daily Mail readers are rightwing and know it

* Sun readers have no idea what wing they or anyone else is on unless it's a football match.

tr3mor

Charlton_King wrote: »

Threads like this throw up in more stark relief even than the bash-the-benefits ones the contrast between the relatively literate, educated and relatively compassionate posters on here who find BBC programming interesting...

... and the relatively, illiterate, uneducated and profoundly unpleasant tendency who actually think that the Sun and Mail are newspapers and who could not understand how the Labour vote held up so well at the last election...

I'm sorry mate. You think that the BBC make interesting programming these days? Have you watched Horizon lately?

Apologies BTW, my opinions are only those of someone with a 1st class Maths degree. They're obviously not as high-brow as you (herd of) independently minded Guardian readers!

tr3mor

And here's an fantastic example of interesting programming on Sky... http://www.skyarts.co.uk/art-design/article/eating-art/

One of the best series on TV that I've seen this year.

ukcarper

Does Sky make any interesting programs

tr3mor

ukcarper wrote: »

Does Sky make any interesting programs

See above.

Wheezy_2

tr3mor wrote: »

I'm sorry mate. You think that the BBC make interesting programming these days?

Yes I do.

And they make rubbish programmes also.

If there's nothing on the BBC you like, well....your problem really. Maybe you could also complain to your local tax-funded library they don't stock any books you're interested in.

Just the F1 coverage is worth the £145 for me, they should get rid of Eddie Jordan though.

lucylucky

tr3mor wrote: »

See above.

To be fair Sky didn't make that show, they just bought it.

lucylucky

PhylPho wrote: »

Wot utter colemanballs. You obviously know nowt about news gathering or editorial independence or editorial cost management.

If you did, you'd be posting here wondering why the BBC staffed the rescue of 33 miners in Chile with no less than 25 journalists.

Whereas Sky managed with. . . five.

How much programming for each organisation was provided by each team?

If you did know anything, you'd be posting here wondering how come Sky News's excellent presentation -- populist though it may have been, but so what? -- consisted of a large graphic at the top lefthand side of the screen showing the countdown of miners rescued, whereas the BBC managed to screen, er, the time in Chile.
So what?

The rank amateurism, over-staffing and milking of the taxpayers' purse by BBC news mandarins would be hilarious if it wasn't so flamin' expensive for the rest of us. Care to explain further?

As to your faith in Private Eye, I've been a subscriber since Christopher Logue and Richard Ingrams were running it, so please don't think I'll ever vilify it.

However, as any fule know, the current editor of the Illustrious Organ doesn't spend any of his spare time on the payroll of News Corp but, er, somewhere else.

Now that the licence fee is fixed and the BBC is being faced to take on extra costs I look forward to seeing how they manage to slim down their over "managed" organisation.

Wonder how long it will be before Radios 1 & 2 are sold off?