The sorry state of streaming residuals shows why SAG and the WGA are striking.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Some years ago the BBC itself ordered a study by Nottingham University which did show that the BBC consistently was pro-whatever-party-was-in-Government, so not being pro a specific party but switching from one of the parties of the power duopoly in Britain to the other as they alternated in Government (funnilly enough giving very little airtime to the smaller leftwing-ecologist party and tons of airtime to smaller far-right parties like UKIP).

    However that’s about the News, not the rest.

    Mind you the BBC also does in it’s contents invariably beautify the view about certain slices of British Society and British History but that’s the same as the 100% private content producers in the US also do, so it doesn’t seem to be an explicitly “Public TV” thing.

    • SirShanova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m unfortunately not very familiar with the BBC other than Top Gear and some of their fabulous documentaries. Thank you for the insight!

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, I lived in the UK for over a decade, having immigrated there from Portugal via The Netherlands, and was quite shocked after having been there long enough to start paying attention to Politics and Society as a whole, that my image of it that was formed when I was a kid in Portugal in the 80s was very different from the reality I found on the ground in the late 00s and beyond.

        There is a huge “keeping up with appearences” strain in (mainly English, worse the higher the social class) British Society that would be seen as hypocrisy in, for example a place like The Netherlands, and that has a huge impact on the BBC because it’s always controlled (both via seats in its Board and those chosen as Editors) by people who come from the english upper classes, so you end up with the kind of things that are important in “Opinion Forming” of the Public (i.e. the News, politically relevant documentaries and such) being carefully managed to produce the “right opinion” (“rightness” being defined by that slice of English society that dominate the BBC’s Board and Editors, so for example they’re unabashedly pro-Monarchy).

        Also the UK has Censorship, in the form of what’s called a D-Notice, where the Government can stop the publishing of certain stories if deemed “against the national interest”, plus things like Libel Legislation are extremelly broad and seem designed to stop whistleblowing, to the point that for example some years ago an Ukranian Oligarch sued in the UK an Ukranian newssite which had denounced actions of his in Ukraine, and the case was accepted by the British courts because “the website could be accessed from Britain”.

        The result is that the creative and apolitical programs from the BBC are often top-notch whilst the rest is Propaganda, elegantly done and not at all in-your-face (mainly through half-throughts, false dichotomies, uneven selection of speakers for different sides and selective picking of things to report) but still done to “make opinion” not merelly “inform”.

        Mind you, this is not just the BBC, though it does manage to be worse in this than the other TV channels in the UK.

        Unsurprisingly the British Press is the Press least trusted by the locals in Europe.

        • SirShanova@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Really interesting information! It’s a shame that they’re not as trusted as I thought in Europe, I revere their short-wave long range news broadcast worldwide. It’s an absolute tragedy Associated Press doesn’t do the same