• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Life without advertising

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't totally despise advertising. Businesses arguably need to get customers. But I am sick and tired of the sheer amount of it. Behind it all is the great big consumerist lie that more stuff (often stuff you don't need) makes you happier, and most advertising is in fact designed to make you less happy.

So I applaud this too, just for making a point. Most people are willing victims when it comes to advertising, and this sort of thing might make people think.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,580
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
Why?

a) it would look amazing

b) it’s exhausting being asked to buy stuff all the time

Wouldn’t it be great not to worry about the holiday we can’t afford, the car we don’t need, or the body we don’t have? Imagine a world where public spaces made you feel good.

That's a pretty good sales pitch in itself.
 

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
That's how life is in the DPRK, basically. And I don't mean that to disparage the idea of doing it here, I mean it because the DPRK is good. It's like life with Adblock enabled, and instead of looking at ads you have murals of flowers and revolutionary propaganda. I would make that trade in a heartbeat.

EDIT: In case it isn't clear, DPRK = the Democratic People's Republic of Korea = "North" Korea = Good Korea
 
Last edited:

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,580
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
I don't totally despise advertising. Businesses arguably need to get customers. But I am sick and tired of the sheer amount of it. Behind it all is the great big consumerist lie that more stuff (often stuff you don't need) makes you happier, and most advertising is in fact designed to make you less happy.

Indeed. Businesses need to get customers, but they don't need constant access to their potential customers.

I recently read a copywriting book that gave a six-stage process for writing sales materials:
Step 1: Tell the reader they have a problem.
Step 2: Amplify the reader's anxiety about that problem.
Steps 3-6: (Basically) Exploit that anxiety

In many cases, it's in the best interests of the consumer to let go of their anxiety and be happy with what they've got, but there's no money to be made from enlightened consumers.
 

Treedbear

Veteran Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
2,567
Location
out on a limb
Basic Beliefs
secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
Giant pictures of cats staring at me from every angle would drive me batty. I can easily ignore advertising posters as long as they each differ enough to just become a blur. The ads that I can't take anymore are the ones on TV. I never watch them since I got the cable DVR. You can't as easily ignore video or audio messaging designed to capture your attention. And when the scene changes on average every 2 seconds it has to effect one's ability to focus attention.
 

Treedbear

Veteran Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
2,567
Location
out on a limb
Basic Beliefs
secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
That's how life is in the DPRK, basically. And I don't mean that to disparage the idea of doing it here, I mean it because the DPRK is good. It's like life with Adblock enabled, and instead of looking at ads you have murals of flowers and revolutionary propaganda. I would make that trade in a heartbeat.

EDIT: In case it isn't clear, DPRK = the Democratic People's Republic of Korea = "North" Korea = Good Korea

I don't think they're eating much steak in "good" korea.
 

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
That's how life is in the DPRK, basically. And I don't mean that to disparage the idea of doing it here, I mean it because the DPRK is good. It's like life with Adblock enabled, and instead of looking at ads you have murals of flowers and revolutionary propaganda. I would make that trade in a heartbeat.

EDIT: In case it isn't clear, DPRK = the Democratic People's Republic of Korea = "North" Korea = Good Korea

I don't think they're eating much steak in "good" korea.

Bulgogi is a pretty popular dish there, but like all Asian nations Korea is generally very heavy on the carbs.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Are you advocating North Korea as a more desirable society than a 'western' one, and partly because of the prevalence of political propaganda images?

Ok. Looks like I underestimated you.
 

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
Are you advocating North Korea as a more desirable society than a 'western' one, and partly because of the prevalence of political propaganda images?

Ok. Looks like I underestimated you.

Depends on what you mean by desirable. It's just very different from Western society, but not in the sense of being an authoritarian hellhole run by a crazy dictator. The truth is, as usual, less sensational and more nuanced when the history and culture of the region are taken into account. The DPRK is a nation with many facets and opinions. The people living there are individuals with ideas and beliefs of their own. They are not brainwashed automatons with no grasp of the outside world.

What has been found in the DPRK based on the reports of visitors who aren't deliberately planted to spread false information is that life there is pretty good, for the most part. There is zero homelessness, ample public services of all kinds, robust community participation, and a strong sense of pride for national solidarity. This makes sense in light of their emergence from Japanese rule and American opportunism. From the perspective of an outsider, what looks like conformity and lack of individuality is just people not expressing themselves through the accumulation of commodities. And yes, one manifestation of this is their lack of advertisement.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,730
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Get suckers to fund putting up advertising for our overlords? Well done!
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
That's how life is in the DPRK, basically. And I don't mean that to disparage the idea of doing it here, I mean it because the DPRK is good. It's like life with Adblock enabled...
It's like life with a browser that can't render HTML.

EDIT: In case it isn't clear, DPRK = the Democratic People's Republic of Korea = "North" Korea = Good Korea
If anyone hears screaming, it's PH, because he's dangling from the far left edge of the political spectrum.
 

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
That's how life is in the DPRK, basically. And I don't mean that to disparage the idea of doing it here, I mean it because the DPRK is good. It's like life with Adblock enabled...
It's like life with a browser that can't render HTML.

EDIT: In case it isn't clear, DPRK = the Democratic People's Republic of Korea = "North" Korea = Good Korea
If anyone hears screaming, it's PH, because he's dangling from the far left edge of the political spectrum.

Nah, I can't stand anarchists
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
This is not a thread about the DPRK.

It's about living without advertising in London, and, by extension, the western developed world, where it is currently endemic.

It's absolutely not a thread about left vs right politics - there's an entire cesspool called "Political Discussions" for that shit.
 

gmbteach

Mrs Frizzle
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
11,659
Location
At home, when I am not at work.
Basic Beliefs
On my journey :D
Giant pictures of cats staring at me from every angle would drive me batty. I can easily ignore advertising posters as long as they each differ enough to just become a blur. The ads that I can't take anymore are the ones on TV. I never watch them since I got the cable DVR. You can't as easily ignore video or audio messaging designed to capture your attention. And when the scene changes on average every 2 seconds it has to effect one's ability to focus attention.

What I noticed in London was a series of the same three or four ads repeated. I would definitely prefer pictures of cats or scenery to advertisements.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Depends on what you mean by desirable. It's just very different from Western society, but not in the sense of being an authoritarian hellhole run by a crazy dictator.

Amnesty International and The UN say that the repression and human rights abuses and restrictions on freedoms of various kinds are some of the worst in the world.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,330
I don't totally despise advertising. Businesses arguably need to get customers. But I am sick and tired of the sheer amount of it. Behind it all is the great big consumerist lie that more stuff (often stuff you don't need) makes you happier, and most advertising is in fact designed to make you less happy.

So I applaud this too, just for making a point. Most people are willing victims when it comes to advertising, and this sort of thing might make people think.

Yea, this. I just wish it was easier to get companies to leave me alone. Ads on TV programs? Ok, fair enough, the media producers need to make money. What bothers me is when companies have their hands on my physical address and either harass me with their garbage for years at a time, or target me with something I typed on the internet.

There needs to be a big 'fuck off, don't put anything in my mailbox button'.

I also find the advertising industry listening to us via the microphones on our own electronic devices without explicitly telling us they're doing so pretty egregious. I'm at a point where I shut my phone off just out of principle.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
I just wish it was easier to get companies to leave me alone. Ads on TV programs? Ok, fair enough, the media producers need to make money.

Oy. Ok, let's see if I can unpack all of this. First of all, "TV" (the medium itself, not merely the physical box that delivers the content), was created by advertisers. That is its sole purpose and always has been. Iow, it isn't that people are out there making media and hoping one day TV will turn toward them and make their dreams come true. The advertisements are "TV," it is the shows in between the advertisements that are, ironically, the advertisements for "TV." Get it? It is exactly the opposite of what it appears to be and that's for a reason; that's part of the way the shows serve to advertise for TV.

This is why McLuhan famously intoned that the medium is the message. Iow, what you should have said is, "Programs on TV ads? Ok, fair enough, the media producers need to make money."

What bothers me is when companies have their hands on my physical address and either harass me with their garbage for years at a time, or target me with something I typed on the internet.

There needs to be a big 'fuck off, don't put anything in my mailbox button'.

There is. There are several in fact. There is the "unsubscribe" function in all such emails and in regard to your physical address you can have it unlisted and in regard to targeting your internet search, that's all to do with "cookies" which you can clear or prevent and any number of different filters you can apply and other ways in which you can shut that shit down.

Number ONE on that list is just to never ever ever buy from any such place and give them bad reviews online (ironically).

Is it deliberately a pain in the ass? Yes. Will it stop it ALL? No. Because it works sufficiently enough times to make it worth while, it is continued, but there are most definitely ways for you to proactively shut out most if not all.

But then, don't ever ever ever use even ONE discount or promotion code or any other thing that could ever be tied to something you clicked on or read online, because if you ever do, you're wrong and they were right. And you have, of course, done this many hundreds of times by now, if not thousands. You just don't either realize it or pay much attention to it. Bought something on Amazon? Then you bought into the system you're railing against.

You can't participate at all and then complain about all the other shit that comes along with it.

I also find the advertising industry listening to us via the microphones

They aren't. Apple is and then selling that data to marketers, but advertisers themselves are not unless you download a particular app that in turn requests that it access your microphone (or otherwise has that set to a default which you can then go in and turn off).

I'm at a point where I shut my phone off just out of principle.

Wise choice and proactive and problem solved.

This is just like the old woman and the snake. You knew it was a snake before you picked it up, so it's on you when you get bit. Caveat emptor didn't just magically go away one day. It's always the maxim, because people fucking suck and will always try to fleece you. Welcome to Earth.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,330
Oy. Ok, let's see if I can unpack all of this. First of all, "TV" (the medium itself, not merely the physical box that delivers the content), was created by advertisers. That is its sole purpose and always has been. Iow, it isn't that people are out there making media and hoping one day TV will turn toward them and make their dreams come true. The advertisements are "TV," it is the shows in between the advertisements that are, ironically, the advertisements for "TV." Get it? It is exactly the opposite of what it appears to be and that's for a reason; that's part of the way the shows serve to advertise for TV.

This is why McLuhan famously intoned that the medium is the message. Iow, what you should have said is, "Programs on TV ads? Ok, fair enough, the media producers need to make money."



There is. There are several in fact. There is the "unsubscribe" function in all such emails and in regard to your physical address you can have it unlisted and in regard to targeting your internet search, that's all to do with "cookies" which you can clear or prevent and any number of different filters you can apply and other ways in which you can shut that shit down.

Number ONE on that list is just to never ever ever buy from any such place and give them bad reviews online (ironically).

Is it deliberately a pain in the ass? Yes. Will it stop it ALL? No. Because it works sufficiently enough times to make it worth while, it is continued, but there are most definitely ways for you to proactively shut out most if not all.

But then, don't ever ever ever use even ONE discount or promotion code or any other thing that could ever be tied to something you clicked on or read online, because if you ever do, you're wrong and they were right. And you have, of course, done this many hundreds of times by now, if not thousands. You just don't either realize it or pay much attention to it. Bought something on Amazon? Then you bought into the system you're railing against.

You can't participate at all and then complain about all the other shit that comes along with it.

I also find the advertising industry listening to us via the microphones

They aren't. Apple is and then selling that data to marketers, but advertisers themselves are not unless you download a particular app that in turn requests that it access your microphone (or otherwise has that set to a default which you can then go in and turn off).

I'm at a point where I shut my phone off just out of principle.

Wise choice and proactive and problem solved.

This is just like the old woman and the snake. You knew it was a snake before you picked it up, so it's on you when you get bit. Caveat emptor didn't just magically go away one day. It's always the maxim, because people fucking suck and will always try to fleece you. Welcome to Earth.

Cool, caveat emptor.. you assume I'm not aware that I play a part in the advertising model. A few years ago I made an attempt to clear all of the spam from my e-mail folder, it took me nearly six months but I actually achieved the task thanks to the unsubscribe button.

And yes, I'm also aware that letting my personal information get out there makes me more susceptible to advertising. This is why I very rarely give that information out. But I don't think it would be too much to ask to place stricter regulations on this kind of spam. In Canada this was actually done recently with CASL in the digital world, and it works beautifully.

In the physical world when this shit is reaching my house it's like pulling fucking teeth to get it to stop.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
In the physical world when this shit is reaching my house it's like pulling fucking teeth to get it to stop.

So just throw it away.

Sorry, I've never understood why people whine so much about receiving junk mail. It takes little to no effort to simply click "delete" or toss something in the trashcan. And, again, there have been numerous times where you went, "Oh, hey, look at that! 25% off...." You just conveniently forget the times where it actually benefited you.

So, yeah, it's a pain, but it's not even a bee sting pain. It's a very very very very minor inconvenience at best, which is why, of course, marketers continue using it.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Oy. Ok, let's see if I can unpack all of this. First of all, "TV" (the medium itself, not merely the physical box that delivers the content), was created by advertisers. That is its sole purpose and always has been. Iow, it isn't that people are out there making media and hoping one day TV will turn toward them and make their dreams come true. The advertisements are "TV," it is the shows in between the advertisements that are, ironically, the advertisements for "TV." Get it? It is exactly the opposite of what it appears to be and that's for a reason; that's part of the way the shows serve to advertise for TV.

This is why McLuhan famously intoned that the medium is the message.

That's certainly true in most of the world; But it needn't be.

I grew up in an environment where two of the three TV channels were not only prohibited from advertising, but were run by a corporation that was so averse to the suggestion that they might be guilty of advertising, that they blacked out brand names on items used on many shows, and changed the name of one children's cartoon imported from America, because it was also the brand name of a pet food.

That corporation was, and still is, responsible for producing some of the most popular and highly regarded TV in history. And while advertising has slowly encroached on the British Broadcasting Corporation, it still doesn't sell advertising space on its domestic broadcast television channels.

Advertising is endemic on TV. But don't let the marketers sell you the lie that this is the only possible situation. Because it's not.
 

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
This is not a thread about the DPRK.

It's about living without advertising in London, and, by extension, the western developed world, where it is currently endemic.

It's absolutely not a thread about left vs right politics - there's an entire cesspool called "Political Discussions" for that shit.

Sorry, bilby, but there is no such thing as a non-political discussion when the topic is related to economics or culture. Everything is political in the end, and if you think it's possible to speak intelligently about advertising without asking about why there are places in the world with no advertisements, what makes those places different, and what would have to change in order to make the same thing happen elsewhere (all of which is politics) then you're in the grip of an unfortunate delusion
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
This is not a thread about the DPRK.

It's about living without advertising in London, and, by extension, the western developed world, where it is currently endemic.

It's absolutely not a thread about left vs right politics - there's an entire cesspool called "Political Discussions" for that shit.

Sorry, bilby, but there is no such thing as a non-political discussion when the topic is related to economics or culture. Everything is political in the end, and if you think it's possible to speak intelligently about advertising without asking about why there are places in the world with no advertisements, what makes those places different, and what would have to change in order to make the same thing happen elsewhere (all of which is politics) then you're in the grip of an unfortunate delusion

Of course it's possible. And if you prefer to have a political discussion, there's an entire forum right there for you to do it in. Just leave the utterly tedious left vs right party political crap out of the other fora.

There's a political element to everything. But it's not always, nor even usually, the only, the most important, or the most interesting element; And sometimes is nice to talk about something else.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
I grew up in an environment where two of the three TV channels were not only prohibited from advertising, but were run by a corporation that was so averse to the suggestion that they might be guilty of advertising, that they blacked out brand names on items used on many shows, and changed the name of one children's cartoon imported from America, because it was also the brand name of a pet food.

You might want to read up on the history of the BBC
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I grew up in an environment where two of the three TV channels were not only prohibited from advertising, but were run by a corporation that was so averse to the suggestion that they might be guilty of advertising, that they blacked out brand names on items used on many shows, and changed the name of one children's cartoon imported from America, because it was also the brand name of a pet food.

You might want to read up on the history of the BBC

Why? No part of that history contradicts anything I said about it.

If you have a rebuttal, then by all means present one. I am not arguing with Wikipedia, not least because Wikipedia doesn't appear to disagree with me.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
I grew up in an environment where two of the three TV channels were not only prohibited from advertising, but were run by a corporation that was so averse to the suggestion that they might be guilty of advertising, that they blacked out brand names on items used on many shows, and changed the name of one children's cartoon imported from America, because it was also the brand name of a pet food.

You might want to read up on the history of the BBC

Why?

Because it shows how the BBC began through a form of corporate sponsorship (i.e., the owner of the Daily Mail) of an artistic program that was very popular among the people, but immediately shunned by "officials" who then banned popular entertainment:

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.

This co-option of the medium in turn lead to a total monopoly over the medium by radio manufacturers:

But by 1922, the GPO had received nearly 100 broadcast licence requests and moved to rescind its ban in the wake of a petition by 63 wireless societies with over 3,000 members. Anxious to avoid the same chaotic expansion experienced in the United States, the GPO proposed that it would issue a single broadcasting licence to a company jointly owned by a consortium of leading wireless receiver manufactures, to be known as the British Broadcasting Company Ltd. John Reith, a Scottish Calvinist, was appointed its General Manager in December 1922 a few weeks after the company made its first official broadcast... The company was to be financed by a royalty on the sale of BBC wireless receiving sets from approved domestic manufacturers.

Which in turn lead to government control and British citizens having to pay a licensing fee. Iow, a tax:

The financial arrangements soon proved inadequate. Set sales were disappointing as amateurs made their own receivers and listeners bought rival unlicensed sets. By mid-1923, discussions between the GPO and the BBC had become deadlocked and the Postmaster-General commissioned a review of broadcasting by the Sykes Committee. The Committee recommended a short term reorganisation of licence fees with improved enforcement in order to address the BBC's immediate financial distress, and an increased share of the licence revenue split between it and the GPO. This was to be followed by a simple 10 shillings licence fee with no royalty once the wireless manufactures protection expired. The BBC's broadcasting monopoly was made explicit for the duration of its current broadcast licence, as was the prohibition on advertising. The BBC was also banned from presenting news bulletins before 19:00 and was required to source all news from external wire services.

The fear? That it would become a propaganda machine:

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.

This fear was quickly realized:

British radio audiences had little choice apart from the upscale programming of the BBC. Reith, an intensely moralistic executive, was in full charge. His goal was to broadcast "All that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavour and achievement.... The preservation of a high moral tone is obviously of paramount importance."Reith succeeded in building a high wall against an American-style free-for-all in radio in which the goal was to attract the largest audiences and thereby secure the greatest advertising revenue. There was no paid advertising on the BBC; all the revenue came from a tax on receiving sets. Highbrow audiences, however, greatly enjoyed it. At a time when American, Australian and Canadian stations were drawing huge audiences cheering for their local teams with the broadcast of baseball, rugby and hockey, the BBC emphasized service for a national, rather than a regional audience. Boat races were well covered along with tennis and horse racing, but the BBC was reluctant to spend its severely limited air time on long football or cricket games, regardless of their popularity.

John Reith and the BBC, with support from the Crown, determined the universal needs of the people of Britain and broadcast content according to these perceived standards. Reith effectively censored anything that he felt would be harmful, directly or indirectly. While recounting his time with the BBC in 1935, Raymond Postgate claims that BBC broadcasters were made to submit a draft of their potential broadcast for approval. It was expected that they tailored their content to accommodate the modest, church-going elderly or a member of the Clergy. Until 1928, entertainers broadcasting on the BBC, both singers and "talkers" were expected to avoid biblical quotations, Clerical impersonations and references, references to drink or Prohibition in America, vulgar and doubtful matter and political allusions.The BBC excluded popular foreign music and musicians from its broadcasts, while promoting British alternatives. On 5 March 1928, Stanley Baldwin, the Prime Minister, maintained the censorship of editorial opinions on public policy, but allowed the BBC to address matters of religious, political or industrial controversy.The resulting political "talk series", designed to inform England on political issues, were criticized by Members of Parliament, including Winston Churchill, David Lloyd George and Sir Austen Chamberlain. Those who opposed these chats claimed that they silence the opinions of those in Parliament who are not nominated by Party Leaders or Party Whips, thus stifling independent, non-official views. In October 1932, the policemen of the Metropolitan Police Federation marched in protest of a proposed pay cut. Fearing dissent within the police force and public support for the movement, the BBC censored its coverage of the events, only broadcasting official statements from the government.

Throughout the 1930s, political broadcasts had been closely monitored by the BBC. In 1935, the BBC censored the broadcasts of Oswald Mosley and Harry Pollitt. Mosley was a leader of the British Union of Fascists, and Pollitt a leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain. They had been contracted to provide a series of five broadcasts on their party's politics. The BBC, in conjunction with The Foreign Office of Britain, first suspended this series and ultimately cancelled it without the notice of the public. Less radical politicians faced similar censorship. In 1938, Winston Churchill proposed a series of talks regarding British domestic and foreign politics and affairs but was similarly censored. The censorship of political discourse by the BBC was a precursor to the total shutdown of political debate that manifested over the BBC's wartime airwaves. The Foreign Office maintained that the public should not be aware of their role in the censorship. From 1935–1939, the BBC also attempted to unite the British Empire's radio waves, sending staff to Egypt, Palestine, Newfoundland, Jamaica, India, Canada and South Africa. Reith personally visited South Africa, lobbying for state run radio programs which was accepted by South African Parliament in 1936. A similar program was adopted in Canada. Through collaboration with these state run broadcasting centers, Reith left a legacy of cultural influence across the empire of Great Britain with his departure from the Corporation in 1938.

This also lead to a tremendous amount of suppression of artistic and "sensitive" works:

In 1938, John Reith and the British government, specifically the Ministry of Information which had been set up for WWII, designed a censorship apparatus for the inevitability of war. Due to the BBC's advancements in shortwave radio technology, the Corporation could broadcast across the world during World War II. Within Europe, the BBC European Service would gather intelligence and information regarding the current events of the war in English. Regional BBC workers, based on their regional geo-political climate, would then further censor the material their broadcasts would cover. Nothing was to be added outside of the preordained news items. For example, the BBC Polish Service was heavily censored due to fears of jeopardizing relations with the Soviet Union. Controversial topics, i.e. the contested Polish and Soviet border, the deportation of Polish citizens, the arrests of Polish Home Army members and the Katyn massacre, were not included in Polish broadcasts. American radio broadcasts were broadcast across Europe on BBC channels. This material also passed through the BBC's censorship office, which surveilled and edited American coverage of British affairs. By 1940, across all BBC broadcasts, music by composers from enemy nations was censored. In total, 99 German, 38 Austrian and 38 Italian composers were censored. The BBC argued that like the Italian or German languages, listeners would be irritated by the inclusion of enemy composers. Any potential broadcaster said to have pacifist, communist or fascist ideologies were not allowed on the BBC's airwaves.

This history of "we know best" continued with the suppression of any Irish opposition for nearly a decade and to this day footage of parliament is banned for use in any satirical/comedic program, such as the John Oliver show (on HBO if you're not familiar). Hell, Star Trek: TOS was even censored.

We have had our bouts of censorship as well, but the point is, of course, that just because you do not have commercial advertising, that it results in anything like an open or egalitarian outcome. Far from it, in fact. There is still somebody holding the purse strings and that somebody in turn is dictating what you will or won't watch. You, as an audience member, have little to no say in the matter.

At least in America, our media is dictated primarily by the audience, not by "Royal Charter." Unfortunately, our audience members include a tremendous number of fucking morons, but that's a different matter.

If you've ever watched a day (an hour; ten minutes) of C-Span, you'll get my point.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist

Because it shows how the BBC began through a form of corporate sponsorship (i.e., the owner of the Daily Mail) of an artistic program that was very popular among the people, but immediately shunned by "officials" who then banned popular entertainment:

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.

This co-option of the medium in turn lead to a total monopoly over the medium by radio manufacturers:

But by 1922, the GPO had received nearly 100 broadcast licence requests and moved to rescind its ban in the wake of a petition by 63 wireless societies with over 3,000 members. Anxious to avoid the same chaotic expansion experienced in the United States, the GPO proposed that it would issue a single broadcasting licence to a company jointly owned by a consortium of leading wireless receiver manufactures, to be known as the British Broadcasting Company Ltd. John Reith, a Scottish Calvinist, was appointed its General Manager in December 1922 a few weeks after the company made its first official broadcast... The company was to be financed by a royalty on the sale of BBC wireless receiving sets from approved domestic manufacturers.

Which in turn lead to government control and British citizens having to pay a licensing fee. Iow, a tax:

The financial arrangements soon proved inadequate. Set sales were disappointing as amateurs made their own receivers and listeners bought rival unlicensed sets. By mid-1923, discussions between the GPO and the BBC had become deadlocked and the Postmaster-General commissioned a review of broadcasting by the Sykes Committee. The Committee recommended a short term reorganisation of licence fees with improved enforcement in order to address the BBC's immediate financial distress, and an increased share of the licence revenue split between it and the GPO. This was to be followed by a simple 10 shillings licence fee with no royalty once the wireless manufactures protection expired. The BBC's broadcasting monopoly was made explicit for the duration of its current broadcast licence, as was the prohibition on advertising. The BBC was also banned from presenting news bulletins before 19:00 and was required to source all news from external wire services.

The fear? That it would become a propaganda machine:

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.

This fear was quickly realized:

British radio audiences had little choice apart from the upscale programming of the BBC. Reith, an intensely moralistic executive, was in full charge. His goal was to broadcast "All that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavour and achievement.... The preservation of a high moral tone is obviously of paramount importance."Reith succeeded in building a high wall against an American-style free-for-all in radio in which the goal was to attract the largest audiences and thereby secure the greatest advertising revenue. There was no paid advertising on the BBC; all the revenue came from a tax on receiving sets. Highbrow audiences, however, greatly enjoyed it. At a time when American, Australian and Canadian stations were drawing huge audiences cheering for their local teams with the broadcast of baseball, rugby and hockey, the BBC emphasized service for a national, rather than a regional audience. Boat races were well covered along with tennis and horse racing, but the BBC was reluctant to spend its severely limited air time on long football or cricket games, regardless of their popularity.

John Reith and the BBC, with support from the Crown, determined the universal needs of the people of Britain and broadcast content according to these perceived standards. Reith effectively censored anything that he felt would be harmful, directly or indirectly. While recounting his time with the BBC in 1935, Raymond Postgate claims that BBC broadcasters were made to submit a draft of their potential broadcast for approval. It was expected that they tailored their content to accommodate the modest, church-going elderly or a member of the Clergy. Until 1928, entertainers broadcasting on the BBC, both singers and "talkers" were expected to avoid biblical quotations, Clerical impersonations and references, references to drink or Prohibition in America, vulgar and doubtful matter and political allusions.The BBC excluded popular foreign music and musicians from its broadcasts, while promoting British alternatives. On 5 March 1928, Stanley Baldwin, the Prime Minister, maintained the censorship of editorial opinions on public policy, but allowed the BBC to address matters of religious, political or industrial controversy.The resulting political "talk series", designed to inform England on political issues, were criticized by Members of Parliament, including Winston Churchill, David Lloyd George and Sir Austen Chamberlain. Those who opposed these chats claimed that they silence the opinions of those in Parliament who are not nominated by Party Leaders or Party Whips, thus stifling independent, non-official views. In October 1932, the policemen of the Metropolitan Police Federation marched in protest of a proposed pay cut. Fearing dissent within the police force and public support for the movement, the BBC censored its coverage of the events, only broadcasting official statements from the government.

Throughout the 1930s, political broadcasts had been closely monitored by the BBC. In 1935, the BBC censored the broadcasts of Oswald Mosley and Harry Pollitt. Mosley was a leader of the British Union of Fascists, and Pollitt a leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain. They had been contracted to provide a series of five broadcasts on their party's politics. The BBC, in conjunction with The Foreign Office of Britain, first suspended this series and ultimately cancelled it without the notice of the public. Less radical politicians faced similar censorship. In 1938, Winston Churchill proposed a series of talks regarding British domestic and foreign politics and affairs but was similarly censored. The censorship of political discourse by the BBC was a precursor to the total shutdown of political debate that manifested over the BBC's wartime airwaves. The Foreign Office maintained that the public should not be aware of their role in the censorship. From 1935–1939, the BBC also attempted to unite the British Empire's radio waves, sending staff to Egypt, Palestine, Newfoundland, Jamaica, India, Canada and South Africa. Reith personally visited South Africa, lobbying for state run radio programs which was accepted by South African Parliament in 1936. A similar program was adopted in Canada. Through collaboration with these state run broadcasting centers, Reith left a legacy of cultural influence across the empire of Great Britain with his departure from the Corporation in 1938.

This also lead to a tremendous amount of suppression of artistic and "sensitive" works:

In 1938, John Reith and the British government, specifically the Ministry of Information which had been set up for WWII, designed a censorship apparatus for the inevitability of war. Due to the BBC's advancements in shortwave radio technology, the Corporation could broadcast across the world during World War II. Within Europe, the BBC European Service would gather intelligence and information regarding the current events of the war in English. Regional BBC workers, based on their regional geo-political climate, would then further censor the material their broadcasts would cover. Nothing was to be added outside of the preordained news items. For example, the BBC Polish Service was heavily censored due to fears of jeopardizing relations with the Soviet Union. Controversial topics, i.e. the contested Polish and Soviet border, the deportation of Polish citizens, the arrests of Polish Home Army members and the Katyn massacre, were not included in Polish broadcasts. American radio broadcasts were broadcast across Europe on BBC channels. This material also passed through the BBC's censorship office, which surveilled and edited American coverage of British affairs. By 1940, across all BBC broadcasts, music by composers from enemy nations was censored. In total, 99 German, 38 Austrian and 38 Italian composers were censored. The BBC argued that like the Italian or German languages, listeners would be irritated by the inclusion of enemy composers. Any potential broadcaster said to have pacifist, communist or fascist ideologies were not allowed on the BBC's airwaves.

This history of "we know best" continued with the suppression of any Irish opposition for nearly a decade and to this day footage of parliament is banned for use in any satirical/comedic program, such as the John Oliver show (on HBO if you're not familiar). Hell, Star Trek: TOS was even censored.

We have had our bouts of censorship as well, but the point is, of course, that just because you do not have commercial advertising, that it results in anything like an open or egalitarian outcome. Far from it, in fact. There is still somebody holding the purse strings and that somebody in turn is dictating what you will or won't watch. You, as an audience member, have little to no say in the matter.

At least in America, our media is dictated primarily by the audience, not by "Royal Charter." Unfortunately, our audience members include a tremendous number of fucking morons, but that's a different matter.

If you've ever watched a day (an hour; ten minutes) of C-Span, you'll get my point.

So your argument is that because BBC radio was sponsored by a businessman a decade before TV broadcasting began, those TV broadcasts were fundamentally intended to support advertising?

That's an incredibly long stretch.

It's almost as if you have realised that your initial claim is false, and are desperately trying to distract attention from it with irrelevancies.

It nevertheless remains true that a lot of very highly regarded and very popular TV has been made by the BBC in an advertising-free environment. And the pre-television history of the BBC does three-eighths of fuck all to change that fact; as do any issues of censorship or government control that arose in the very environment you were claiming did not exist.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
So your argument is that because BBC radio was sponsored by a businessman a decade before TV broadcasting began, those TV broadcasts were fundamentally intended to support advertising?

No. Read what I wrote again.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
So your argument is that because BBC radio was sponsored by a businessman a decade before TV broadcasting began, those TV broadcasts were fundamentally intended to support advertising?

No. Read what I wrote again.

Why? Will my doing so magically change the fact that you are wrong?
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
So your argument is that because BBC radio was sponsored by a businessman a decade before TV broadcasting began, those TV broadcasts were fundamentally intended to support advertising?

No. Read what I wrote again.

Why? Will my doing so magically change the fact that you are wrong?

Wow. You were wrong, I explained why. You clearly didn't read what I wrote and instead stuffed a strawman and now are doubling down on your own ignorance.

Well done.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Why? Will my doing so magically change the fact that you are wrong?

Wow. You were wrong, I explained why. You clearly didn't read what I wrote and instead stuffed a strawman and now are doubling down on your own ignorance.

Well done.

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness.

That's it? That's your comeback? Okay :thumbsup:

What else can I say? I made a completely factual claim. You responded with an insinuation that the history of the BBC somehow rendered that claim false. When challenged, you posted a wall of irrelevant text (A well stuffed array of strawmen). I pointed out that your response in no way addressed my position, and you told me to re-read it - which seems unlikely to cause it's content to change in any way. You responded by accusing me of exactly the behaviour you yourself are exhibiting.

From this I conclude that you are wasting my time and yours.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness.

That's it? That's your comeback? Okay :thumbsup:

What else can I say?

Something intelligent?

I made a completely factual claim. You responded with an insinuation that the history of the BBC somehow rendered that claim false.

No I did not. Speaking of strawmen, you insinuated that commercial free just axiomatically translated into quality entertainment:

That corporation was, and still is, responsible for producing some of the most popular and highly regarded TV in history. And while advertising has slowly encroached on the British Broadcasting Corporation, it still doesn't sell advertising space on its domestic broadcast television channels.

Advertising is endemic on TV. But don't let the marketers sell you the lie that this is the only possible situation. Because it's not.

To which I suggested you read up on the history of the BBC, with particular emphasis on its heavy censorship and presumptive arrogance that came as a result of not allowing the audience dictate the programming the way commercial media operates, in spite of the fact that it started out that way and should have been allowed to continue that way.

Yes, you had no commercials, but the ironic cost of that was heavy state-sanctioned/state-run monopoly censorship that you had no choice in and were taxed for whether or not you liked any of the programming.

Commercials are annoying, but they pay for that privilege, not the audience member. And while there was a time of strict moral censorship in America stemming from the Hays Code from the 1930s, by the 70's those boundaries were pretty much pushed to their breaking points and by the eighties onward it's been more or less an open market. For us it is always about tits and swear words, but for Britain you still are not allowed to use footage of parliament in a satirical fashion, which I would argue completely negates the temporary majesty of commercial free Downton Abbey.

The censorship during "the troubles," for another example, during a time when people were being blown up ffs arguably lead to far more damage and deaths for a much longer time than would have been the case had there been no such censorship. Indeed, some have argued that the censorship actually helped Sinn Féin, not hurt it.

Iow, the POINT of my response--that you missed entirely, which is why I told you to re-read it--was that commercial free comes with its own set of negatives that are not just axiomatically overridden by the occasional popular hit or "highly regarded TV." It was not a counter-argument; nor was it a strawman. It was about revealing the other, darker side to commercial free programming. Which, again, is why I simply suggested that you read up on the history of the BBC.

There is a trade-off and in the case of the BBC that trade-off was and still remains to be heavy state censorship. In America, it's nearly impossible to impose that kind of state censorship, which is why Trump had to turn to Twitter as a one-way source of propaganda and the right had to create an entire fake news consortium and while I would dearly love to be able to unleash the power of the government on the wholesale destruction of the Fox "News" network, I, personally, find state-censorship fascist and anathema, regardless of its positive intent.

So, no, I was NOT--and did not--state, Bilby argued X and I am here counter-arguing against X.

Fucking hell.
 

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
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.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,580
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
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.

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.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
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.

:noid: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.

:facepalm: 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?
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,580
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
You probably should have started by saying that and avoided a lot of bother.

:noid: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?

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.

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.

:facepalm: 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.

That's a fair point.

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?

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. This is not the case with free-to-air TV, where broadcasters interrupt programs to broadcast ads and superimpose banner ads during shows.

I'll grant you that Netflix is advertising to me by showing me their product, but that's not much different than saying that the local bakery is advertising to me by serving me a Cornish pasty. Advertising simply by doing a good job is benign, and doesn't have the quality of being intrusive that causes ads to irritate me.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
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.

"Linking"? The point of linking is for others to click on the link, not simply to link something. Literally all anyone had to do was to read the article to immediately get the point, but when it became clear bilby did neither, I clarified by quoting the article for him.

My mistake for assuming an intelligence not in evidence.

You make a valid point, but Netflix's advertising is inoffensive to users.

To some. I, otoh, get incredibly pissed off searching and searching and searching for something to watch, spending so much time seeing the same shows I don't want to watch (because most of it is crap or something so outdated that everyone has already seen it several times over). Why? Because for them it's about quantity, not necessarily quality.

I can watch a TV show on Netflix without interruptions for ads.

True. The entire process is one continuous ad. That, however, does not mean it will remain that way.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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.

And linking to a very long article that mentions your actual point in amongst dozens of other points is NOT making your point. How the FUCK was I supposed to know that your beef was with what you consider unacceptable government censorship, and not with some other personal bugbear of yours? For all I knew, you wanted to argue that as the BBC began as a radio broadcaster, it wasn't really a TV corporation.

Sure, that would have been a dumb argument to try to make. But so is the argument that censorship on the BBC is somehow worse than on US commercial television. I can't read your mind and work out what idiocy you have gleaned from a rather large wikipedia article.

Perhaps you should read up on human history. There's a really compelling implied point in there that makes a superb argument; I will leave it up to you to work out to what I am referring.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
Well your argument would perhaps not be such utterly condescending crap if you didn't have massive censorship in the USA.

Moral censorship, not government censorship of opposing political views.

And by the way, the TV licence (and it's precursor, the radio licence) pay for the BBC.

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! :thumbsup:

Fucking hell.
 
Last edited:

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,777
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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! :thumbsup:

Fucking hell.

OK - so your entire reason for chipping in was that despite agreeing completely with everything I said, you felt that I should be unhappy with using the BBC as an example of advertising-free television, because of your completely irrelevant opinions about moral censorship.

I sincerely apologise for my idiotic failure to grasp that you were making an off-topic point, that was so obviously important that it need only be hinted at, in order to show me the error of my ways in wanting to discuss something other than your preferred subject matter in my thread.

Thank you so much for the massively pointless condescending pile of stinking bullshit; It's certainly made everyone aware of just how important your preferred topic of conversation is over that of the thread. I am sure everyone thinks you are ever so smart.

Now could you kindly either return to the topic, or fuck off. Thanks.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
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.
 
Top Bottom