Scottish TV at the expense of the English and Welsh

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark Carver
wrote:
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article , JohnT
wrote:
I don't think that the BBC can offer any opinion on this.

The BBC shouldn't have an *opinion*. They should be, and probably
are, making plans to deal with various possibilities. If so they
should tell us what they are. They shouldn't be keeping anything
secret.

The worry (for them) is a significant number of people in Scotland will
use the question of whether BBC programmes will still be available or
not, to influence their voting choice.

You really can't have such an important democratic decision such as
independence, influenced by a public fear they won't get to see
EastEnders and SCD ever again. It's absolutely right the BBC remain
tight lipped IMHO.

I'd agree entirely except for changing your last statement by adding a
*must not*. i.e. I'd say

It's absolutely right the BBC MUST NOT remain tight lipped IMHO.

As I keep pointing out, their refusal *does* influence the debate -
applying pressure towards a 'no' for exactly the reasons you summarise. A
lack of relevant info promotes the fear that BBC access will be lost.


Jim clearly doesn't get the point that the BBC cannot express any opinion
about what may happen in the event of a "yes" vote. It would be a matter
only for the Westminster Parliament.

--
JohnT

In message , Graham Murray
writes
Peter Duncanson writes:

Surely any relationship the BBC would have with an independent Scotland
would be a matter for Parliament. The BBC Charter would have to be
amended to fit the new situation. The BBC bigwigs might be able to make
suggestions but they wouldn't have the power to make decisions.

I disagree. The relationship between the BBC and an independent Scotland
should not be decided by parliament, but as a commercial/contractual
relationship between the BBC and Scottish broadcasters. If a Scottish
broadcaster wishes transmit BBC programming to viewers/listeners in
Scotland then they should negotiate the rights to do so. The BBC sells
its programming to other foreign stations, so an independent Scotland
should be treated in the same way.

Surely the people to deal with would be Freeview and Freesat.
--
Ian

In article , JohnT
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...



Jim clearly doesn't get the point that the BBC cannot express any
opinion

Whereas you've clearly not understood or read what I've already actually
said. e.g.

On 01 Dec in uk.tech.digital-tv, Jim Lesurf wrote:
They have to explain what they think the practicalities and costs, etc,
will be and stick to dealing with factual-based things. Not give an
opinion on what they'd 'like' the vote to be.

and similar statements in other postings.

I'm explicitly not asking for their 'opinions' on how people should vote.
But if they have any plans or examinations of the costs / options /
practicalities following a 'yes' then that may affect how people decide to
vote. Its a matter of being able to make an *informed* choice.

Like it or not, a refusal to even discuss such matters in public will mean
that some people will be deterred from voting 'yes' out of a worry that
they'd lose access to things they wish to keep on being able to view/hear.
Saying nothing is not 'neutral', it biasses consideration by denying people
information.

Afraid they can't simply pass this off as "for the Government to say"
because both the costs, changes in provision, and practicalities would
depend on how the BBC would impliment any changes.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
In article , Mark Carver
wrote:
lid wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 21:16:34 +0000, Mark Carver

It's democracy in play I agree, but clouded with the emotion of
trivial matters, The very fact EE and SCD were mentioned by name in
the SNP's document could be interpreted as emotional manipulation.
However, it is a frequently used political tool.

Those programmes are trivial matters to you, and to me. But who are
we to judge what is important to the voters of Scotland?

We're not, but what do the Beeb do then ?

Be honest and open. I know that approach can be a bit of a shock for a
civil-service-like body like the BBC management class. :-) But the
reality is that stubborn silence is just as 'political' in its effect as
speaking up in a situation where ignorance *will* affect the results.

They have to explain what they think the practicalities and costs, etc,
will be and stick to dealing with factual-based things. Not give an
opinion on what they'd 'like' the vote to be. But if one decision is
likely to affect costs or access for any technical or organisational
reasons they must explain so people can take that into account.

Whatever they say, will reveal an opinion, which could make them appear
partisan ?

Its their day job to give information *without* adding their opinions. If
they can't do that then they shouldn't be the BBC. That's their role. if
they are such shinking violets we can't trust them to stand up to power
on other issues, either.

Theer are too many 'ifs' and 'buts'. Once king Salmon has said what he
plans to do, then the BBC ought to be able to say how they will react.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Mark Carver wrote:

Whatever they say, will reveal an opinion, which could make them appear
partisan ? They are supposed to be an impartial organisation, perhaps it's
time to stop pretending to have a neutral stance on every matter,
and to redefine themselves as a State Broadcaster ? Just like our other
national institutions ?

I think the BBC is in an almost impossible position regarding bias.
'Creatives' tend to be left wing, middle class metropolitans tend to be
left/liberal. Short of sacking the bloody lot and then trying to
re-employ using some sort of McCarthyist selection process there's not a
lot they can do. It would be nice if they'd try though. I would have
thought a bias review by an external body would help. A genuine one I
mean. With teeth.

Bill

The only reason the Scots are worried about Eastenders and Coronation
Street is because they're used to them. If they were cut off and
replaced by Scots soap operas they'd soon get used to it, and finally
decide it was better. That's assuming the programmes were as good, of
course...

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

The only reason the Scots are worried about Eastenders and Coronation
Street is because they're used to them. If they were cut off and
replaced by Scots soap operas they'd soon get used to it, and finally
decide it was better. That's assuming the programmes were as good, of
course...

They've got their own soap already, River City on BBC Scotland,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006p2xl

and I'm sure STV can resurrect Take The High Road ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mark Carver wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

The only reason the Scots are worried about Eastenders and Coronation
Street is because they're used to them. If they were cut off and
replaced by Scots soap operas they'd soon get used to it, and finally
decide it was better. That's assuming the programmes were as good, of
course...

They've got their own soap already, River City on BBC Scotland,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006p2xl

and I'm sure STV can resurrect Take The High Road ?



Yeah but but those progs are/were ****e I think? I meant if they made
something based in, say, Glasgow, but with the same production values as
Eastenders.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

Yeah but but those progs are/were ****e I think? I meant if they made
something based in, say, Glasgow, but with the same production values as
Eastenders.

Well, River City ticks the first box, but the lack of a proper budget
fails to tick the second, although I assume the intention of the programme was
to do that ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mark Carver wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

Yeah but but those progs are/were ****e I think? I meant if they made
something based in, say, Glasgow, but with the same production values
as Eastenders.

Well, River City ticks the first box, but the lack of a proper budget
fails to tick the second, although I assume the intention of the
programme was to do that ?


Did you ever see that Gaelic soap? That was well weird.

Bill