My soul is not lost. Grubby perhaps, but I'm sure its still in the drawer where I left it.
>>Unless of course you actually like a flood of wall-to-wall pay-TV sport, soft porn, C-grade celeb tittle-tattle and vulgar, reactionary politics.
No, I don't, and I don't pay for subscription TV where I have a choice. But sufficient numbers of people known as subscribers must do. And Murdoch's not worried about what the company broadcasts, providing it is meeting its performance targets - paid or renewed subscriptions or purchases.
Murdoch's mission, if he has one, is to become more wealthy and more powerful. The impact that programming has on that is only how much it is in demand.
>>Governments on both sides of the Atlantic have to debate what to do about the Digger
They don't need to. And they'll never get anywhere if they do.
Its dead simple really; if sufficient people stop watching, buying, paying then what is broadcast / printed / said will change.
It's no different to the argument against the paparazzi.
If there was no demand for it, then a commercial enterprise won't do it.
Look at "phone hacking [sic]". Nobody minded reading about Gordon Brown's son, nobody minded reading details of this affair or that illness. I guess nobody minded where the information came from - I suppose that they would have realised it was friends/ doctors/ whoever if they had thought about it.
But they are seemingly outraged that it came from mobile phone messaging - and assorted bribery.
Why?
And News international, BSkyB and the rest survive and prosper by delivering what people will pay for.
However, I believe the BBC should rise above a desperate need for popularity as judged by ratings. The way they are created and managed should allow other criteria to be used beyond simply viewing figures.
If they wish to be measured by viewing figures, then they should be prepared to largely fund themselves as the other PSBs do.
If they wish to be measured by their achievement of higher goals, then they should sort out their programming.
Equally that means the Government should play its part - e.g. continue and grow the list of protected sporting events, not reduce it.
But then the viewing masses need to play their part. Don't watch anything that you morally disagree with, and consider abandoning a single channel or an entire MCO if you feel they are showing too much material that you object to.
2 years later, if the offensive progamming remains, then I feel you will need to understand that it isn't a conspiracy from any one person, it is the desire of the viewing and paying public.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 11 Sep 12 at 15:57
|
