PyramidHead
Contributor
It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other
It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other
It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other
Yes, well, I, for one, was not "sniping" at bilby, merely suggesting that he should read up on the history of the BBC and how it evidently traded commercials for monopoly state-censorship in spite of having also produced occasionally brilliant material. Advertising is often a pain in the ass, but it's not nearly as bad as government imposed censorship, imho.
It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other
Yes, well, I, for one, was not "sniping" at bilby, merely suggesting that he should read up on the history of the BBC and how it evidently traded commercials for monopoly state-censorship in spite of having also produced occasionally brilliant material. Advertising is often a pain in the ass, but it's not nearly as bad as government imposed censorship, imho.
You probably should have started by saying that and avoided a lot of bother.
You might want to read up on the history of the BBC
The BBC may censor material, but it shows that good TV, including both news and entertainment, can be done without advertising.
However we don't need to look only to government broadcasters for examples: streaming services such as Netflix and its competitors provide TV without advertising, too.
You probably should have started by saying that and avoided a lot of bother.
I did. I said:
You might want to read up on the history of the BBC
Do you not understand how linking to a source--and pointing to that source with a preface of "You might want to read up on the history of" it--is doing precisely that?
The "bother" was entirely instigated by bilby.
The BBC may censor material, but it shows that good TV, including both news and entertainment, can be done without advertising.
Who said good TV cannot be accomplished without advertising? My point was that in the case of the BBC, they evidently traded commercials for government censorship and monopoly control. Two generally horrible conditions that no country should seek or be particularly proud of, regardless of whether or not it resulted in the twentieth iteration of Upstairs, Downstairs.
However we don't need to look only to government broadcasters for examples: streaming services such as Netflix and its competitors provide TV without advertising, too.
No, what they provide is advertising for their services. Those movies and TV shows and every bit of content all serves to advertise for "Netflix."
Just stop for one second and trade "Colgate" for "Netflix." Or "Coca Cola" for "Netflix." Everything you see listed on Netflix is an advertisement for Netflix.
It does not overtly state that, of course--except for programs produced directly by Netflix--but try to wrap your head around the meta condition of a company wanting you to give them your money. How do they do that? By advertising. How does Netflix advertise? By licensing and/or creating content that serves as the incentive for you to give them your money.
You see that they have something you want, so you will give them money for it. That's the very essence of advertising.
Do you think Netflix is giving people like Adam Sandler hundreds of millions of dollars to make artistically uplifting content, Ars Gratia Artis? No. They are creating long-form advertisements for Netflix.
Get it now? Just as the British government (effectively) created Dr. Who and Monty Python and the like in order to advertise themselves and the power they wield over the average British citizens. We will give you this trifle, but the tradeoff will be no talking about this subject or that subject and definitely no broadcasting of this sensitive thing we don't like or that sensitive thing that displeases our agenda...etc., etc., etc.
It is ALL advertising for something. It's inescapable. Unless you are an artist that literally creates your own content and self-publishes, but then, you would likewise be advertising.
The form it comes in is not relevant. The medium is the message. Get it?
No--there's no way for the reader to tell what point you wanted to make by linking to the wiki article for the BBC.
You make a valid point, but Netflix's advertising is inoffensive to users.
I can watch a TV show on Netflix without interruptions for ads.
It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other
Yes, well, I, for one, was not "sniping" at bilby, merely suggesting that he should read up on the history of the BBC and how it evidently traded commercials for monopoly state-censorship in spite of having also produced occasionally brilliant material. Advertising is often a pain in the ass, but it's not nearly as bad as government imposed censorship, imho.
Well your argument would perhaps not be such utterly condescending crap if you didn't have massive censorship in the USA.
And by the way, the TV licence (and it's precursor, the radio licence) pay for the BBC.
This is not a tax imposed on people whether they like the programming or not - If you don't want to own a TV, you don't have to pay for the programs.
How the FUCK was I supposed to know that your beef was with what you consider unacceptable government censorship
But so is the argument that censorship on the BBC is somehow worse than on US commercial television.
I can't read your mind
Moral censorship, not government censorship of opposing political views.
Yes, I know.
This is not a tax imposed on people whether they like the programming or not - If you don't want to own a TV, you don't have to pay for the programs.
Iow, it's a tax imposed on people whether they like the programming or not, with the only option being don't own a TV instead of exercise your power as a consumer/audience member to determine what programming will be crafted to keep you coming back for more.
In Britain, the audience had no say in what was presented. Indeed, what was popular--as the article begins with--was deliberately banned in favor of a "we know best" arrogance and established monopoly. In America, we effectively vote for what we want by the extent to which we watch or don't watch. Programmers follow the audience, not the other way around.
It has its problems, certainly, but the POINT was that so does the BBC's approach.
How the FUCK was I supposed to know that your beef was with what you consider unacceptable government censorship
By doing as I suggested you do and read up on the history of the BBC in the article I linked to for that expressed purpose, which clearly and unmistakably was all about the extensive government censorship, which is prima facie bad, not merely what I "consider unacceptable."
And then after you stuffed your strawman and I reiterated that you should read the article I linked to.
And then again after I had to quote the article at length to walk you fucking through it like a cheese eating school boy.
But so is the argument that censorship on the BBC is somehow worse than on US commercial television.
It is. Far, far worse. We censor certain swear words and nipples. The BBC to this day censors political thought and criticism!
I can't read your mind
I didn't ask you to. I suggested you read up on the history of the BBC ffs and then gave you the link to that history that was all about the government imposed censorship and monopoly stronghold over the BBC that was a deliberate and direct result of providing commercial free programming! A brain dead five year old could have figured it out by just reading the article, but when you still couldn't, I then spelled it out for you and now, thanks entirely to you and this monstrous stupidity of yours, we have you thinking you're somehow the wronged party.
Don't worry, I will never again give you the benefit of the doubt to be an intelligent individual capable of discerning the central thesis of an article whose central thesis is repeated clearly and in depth throughout the entire article, as the extensive quoting I had to subsequently provide--in response to you asking me why--unmistakably demonstrates.
You need to have everything spelled out in big EZ 2 READ TYPE and clicking on a link that SPELLS EVERYTHING OUT FOR YOU is not something you are capable of handling on your own and even then--after it is literally spelled out to you--you STILL get it wrong.
Got it!
Fucking hell.
OK - so your entire reason for chipping in
OK - so your entire reason for chipping in
Was because you were glorifying the BBC's history of commercial-free programming in spite of the fact that there was a much darker trade-off involved in that history, which is entirely relevant to the thread, so stop acting like a fucking child.
OK - so your entire reason for chipping in
Was because you were glorifying the BBC's history of commercial-free programming in spite of the fact that there was a much darker trade-off involved in that history, which is entirely relevant to the thread, so stop acting like a fucking child.
I wasn't glorifying anything, so take your derail and your condescending attitude and shove them back up your arse.
It remains a fact that TV can and does exist without being a vehicle for advertising.
Seriously, invest in a mirror.I wasn't glorifying anything, so take your derail and your condescending attitude and shove them back up your arse.
YOU blew this all way out of proportion and you know it. Now you're continuing to act like a fucking child because you're getting spanked for it.
They also had a logo that was their acronym in slightly curved edged boxes. Which I didn't mention, because it was completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I don't frankly give a fuck if someone else wanted to talk about their logo, and a broad hint that their branding is something I don't know enough about would have left me totally mystified. Because it would have been an inadequately introduced and fucking stupid derail.It remains a fact that TV can and does exist without being a vehicle for advertising.
And the example you raised up was the BBC, which ALSO HAD A DARK COST TO NOT HAVING ADVERTISING.
So fucking what? Their programming wasn't created solely to provide a vehicle for advertising. That would be true even if the trade off were a board of directors who eat kittens for breakfast.The tradeoff was monopoly control and heavy and continuing government censorship of political criticism.
Only if by "in the wrong" you mean "completely factually correct, but not talking about something I wanted to discuss". And only if by "you alone" you mean we need to ignore your factually incorrect claim that all television programming was created to support advertising.YOU and YOU alone were in the wrong here.
Did you guys know that Cuba has large and beautiful murals depicting national solidarity and hope for the future on its buildings and billboards instead of Pepsi advert--oops, my bad, I wouldn't want this thread to devolve into hostility and namecalling
Did you guys know that Cuba has large and beautiful murals depicting national solidarity and hope for the future on its buildings and billboards instead of Pepsi advert--oops, my bad, I wouldn't want this thread to devolve into hostility and namecalling
Propaganda is a form of advertising.
Seriously, invest in a mirror.
So fucking what?The tradeoff was monopoly control and heavy and continuing government censorship of political criticism.
Their programming wasn't created solely to provide a vehicle for advertising.
Only if by "in the wrong" you mean "completely factually correct, but not talking about something I wanted to discuss".YOU and YOU alone were in the wrong here.
And only if by "you alone" you mean we need to ignore your factually incorrect claim that all television programming was created to support advertising.
Britain's first live public broadcast was made from the factory of Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company in Chelmsford in June 1920. It was sponsored by the Daily Mail's Lord Northcliffe and featured the famous Australian soprano Dame Nellie Melba. The Melba broadcast caught the people's imagination and marked a turning point in the British public's attitude to radio. However, this public enthusiasm was not shared in official circles where such broadcasts were held to interfere with important military and civil communications. By late 1920, pressure from these quarters and uneasiness among the staff of the licensing authority, the General Post Office (GPO), was sufficient to lead to a ban on further Chelmsford broadcasts.
You are being an arsehole.
Mid-1925 found the future of broadcasting under further consideration, this time by the Crawford committee. By now, the BBC, under Reith's leadership, had forged a consensus favouring a continuation of the unified (monopoly) broadcasting service, but more money was still required to finance rapid expansion. Wireless manufacturers were anxious to exit the loss making consortium with Reith keen that the BBC be seen as a public service rather than a commercial enterprise. The recommendations of the Crawford Committee were published in March the following year and were still under consideration by the GPO when the 1926 general strike broke out in May. The strike temporarily interrupted newspaper production, and with restrictions on news bulletins waived, the BBC suddenly became the primary source of news for the duration of the crisis.
The crisis placed the BBC in a delicate position. On one hand Reith was acutely aware that the government might exercise its right to commandeer the BBC at any time as a mouthpiece of the government if the BBC were to step out of line, but on the other he was anxious to maintain public trust by appearing to be acting independently. The government was divided on how to handle the BBC but ended up trusting Reith, whose opposition to the strike mirrored the PM's own. Thus the BBC was granted sufficient leeway to pursue the government's objectives largely in a manner of its own choosing. The resulting coverage of both striker and government viewpoints impressed millions of listeners who were unaware that the PM had broadcast to the nation from Reith's home, using one of Reith's sound bites inserted at the last moment, or that the BBC had banned broadcasts from the Labour Party and delayed a peace appeal by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Supporters of the strike nicknamed the BBC the BFC for British Falsehood Company. Reith personally announced the end of the strike which he marked by reciting from Blake's "Jerusalem" signifying that England had been saved.
While the BBC tends to characterise its coverage of the general strike by emphasising the positive impression created by its balanced coverage of the views of government and strikers, Jean Seaton, Professor of Media History and the Official BBC Historian, has characterised the episode as the invention of "modern propaganda in its British form". Reith argued that trust gained by 'authentic impartial news' could then be used. Impartial news was not necessarily an end in itself.
The BBC did well out of the crisis, which cemented a national audience for its broadcasting, and it was followed by the Government's acceptance of the recommendation made by the Crawford Committee (1925–26) that the British Broadcasting Company be replaced by a non-commercial, Crown-chartered organisation: the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Did you guys know that Cuba has large and beautiful murals depicting national solidarity and hope for the future on its buildings and billboards instead of Pepsi advert--oops, my bad, I wouldn't want this thread to devolve into hostility and namecalling
Did you guys know that Cuba has large and beautiful murals depicting national solidarity and hope for the future on its buildings and billboards instead of Pepsi advert--oops, my bad, I wouldn't want this thread to devolve into hostility and namecalling
Propaganda is a form of advertising.
Pee is stored in the balls.