Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Ha Ha Ha Ha Good

Ha Ha Ha Ha Good
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2022, 05:28 PM
 
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2022, 05:42 PM
 
He doesn't sound sorry at all, and doesn't have the money, yet flew to CT in a jet and stayed at a mansion, and is asking his followers for more money.

Grifters gotta grift.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2022, 06:04 PM
 
Man, read those statements he made outside the courthouse after the verdict. He’s such an unrepentant piece of shit. Sadly, I doubt the families will ever see a dime. Jones will just appeal the shit out of this into oblivion.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2022, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Man, read those statements he made outside the courthouse after the verdict. He’s such an unrepentant piece of shit. Sadly, I doubt the families will ever see a dime. Jones will just appeal the shit out of this into oblivion.
Given how he acted during trials, I don’t see any way but Jones losing all of his exposed assets. I don’t think he can do anything but delay the inevitable. The tricky thing for the lawyers will be to locate his assets.

If you really want some WTF moments, have a look how he acted on the stand, it made me doubt he and I are of the same species.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2022, 05:48 PM
 
Imagine if they just took Infowars as payment and changed it tell the truth.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2022, 06:45 PM
 
Apparently, when it became apparent things weren’t going his way, Jones moved all the monetary assets of his two companies that were being sued, over to an undisclosed (and, thus, uninvolved in the lawsuit) third company. Then, the two companies being sued filed for bankruptcy protection.

Meanwhile, he’s begging his listeners to fork over cash to help him out.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2022, 08:50 PM
 
You'd think there would some kind of law against shifting assets while being sued. If not asset freezing per se, then an "anything you moved after the suit was filed can be clawed back and taken" clause.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2022, 08:50 PM
 
I see Trump has been subpoenad to the Jan 6 committee too. Karma is having a decent week so far.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2022, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I see Trump has been subpoenad to the Jan 6 committee too. Karma is having a decent week so far.
Republicans will win the midterms and dissolve the Jan 6 committee before anything happens.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2022, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Republicans will win the midterms and dissolve the Jan 6 committee before anything happens.
They'll re-purpose it into a Biden impeachment committee, and use it to tie-up his administration for the next two years. That, or their long-salivated-for Hunter Biden investigation committee, with the same ends. Either way, if the republicans take the house, we'll get to witness on the big stage the full-on-batshit-crazy the party has descended into.

And, if the republicans take back the senate...sweet jesus, pour one out for democracy. It was good knowing ye.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2022, 03:57 PM
 
Democracy is already dead in the UK. The Tories are voting for a new PM again and this time they can't drag it out for two months so its being done online. Anyone, anywhere in the world can apparently become a member of the party for £5. Someone already registered a tortoise and a dead person. Clearly this is all absolutely fine.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2022, 03:58 PM
 
Are the Republicans projected to win in the midterms? I don't understand how so many could vote for such a bunch of amoral lunatics. At least our opinion polls have the Conservatives almost obliterated out of existence. But they won't let us vote for another two years because they don't have to.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2022, 06:12 PM
 
For various reasons, Republicans have the advantage in midterms. It doesn’t always pay-off, but that’s fundamental lay-of-the-land.

I haven’t the slightest clue what current predictions are, just giving you the scoop on how these things internally operate.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2022, 06:16 PM
 
Dems are projected to keep control of the Senate. Reps are projected to gain control of the House of Representatives. They won't be able to pass bills, but they can prevent any Dem bills from being passed either. Based on past times when we had split houses, only a few bills will pass after agonizing negotiations. Mostly gridlock, with a chance of government shutdowns.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2022, 10:24 PM
 
Given that the House controls the pocketbook, the Rs are already signaling a lot of monkeywrenching with spending, including seriously hindering further aid to Ukraine. They’ve also signaled a willingness to go after Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

If nothing else, an R House will tie-up Biden with a bottomless dive into Hunter’s laptop and probably an impeachment investigation. That, and/or some parliamentary bullshit intended to prove Trump won and Biden’s presidency is illegitimate. Regardless, an R House will be a serious clown car of misery. If the Rs also manage to take the Senate...I dunno...words escape me to describe the mess the country will find itself in.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2022, 06:59 PM
 
On the plus side, Boris Chapter 2 isn't going to happen. So thats the first good thing to happen in UK politics for ages.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2022, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
On the plus side, Boris Chapter 2 isn't going to happen. So thats the first good thing to happen in UK politics for ages.
I was just thinking “Are you serious?!?” (picture me with a serious amount of side eye) to myself when I heard Boris’ name being floated. At this point, I reckon Sunak is the logical choice. While I don’t agree with his policies, he seems much more honest about where he stands and consistent. (Is that correct? I have to admit that I don’t follow the ins and outs of British politics.) I’d rather criticize someone for his actual positions than deal with someone who changes their opinions based on what is expedient in the moment, but could change.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2022, 10:14 AM
 
I read that Sunak was just appointed to be the next prime minister. (I’ve been semioffline, I have had a job interview abroad.) Apparently, Sunak said something Merkel-esque: deeds > words.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2022, 12:41 PM
 
Also Barry Bostwick-esque.



     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2022, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
On the plus side, Boris Chapter 2 isn't going to happen. So thats the first good thing to happen in UK politics for ages.
"Good" being on a relative grading scale against levels of "shit-show".
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2022, 02:50 PM
 
Can any of you UK guys explain why Liz Truss went down? My impression was she launched one boner, trying to give (yet more) tax breaks to the rich, as the UK faced increasing deficits. I didn't see anything else dramatic, and her resignation took me by surprise.

Busting a conservative for tax breaks to the rich would fail all of them - that's the one consistent thing they've always tried to do, on either side of the pond. Apparently taxes for the rich are never low enough.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2022, 04:31 PM
 
So people were feeling the pinch from increased petrol prices, then the energy companies started jacking up the price of natural gas and then electricity. We have a cap on domestic electricity prices, but its set by a "regulatory" body that is made up of energy company representatives so they are (not) regulating themselves.

Background - gas prices on the market went up due to Russia restricting supply as revenge for backing Ukraine against them and imposing economic sanctions. The UK only gets about 4% of our gas from Russia, so arguably this should have had a negligible effect on us, but because the Tories sold all our North Sea oil and gas mining rights to private companies like Shell and BP, and there is some kind of global exchange market that gas sales all flow through, they were able to capitalise on the rising market rates and sell at ludicrous prices despite zero increase in their production costs. And while the French capped price rises at 4%, our electricity bills have skyrocketed. Domestic bills had already doubled and were due to go up another 50% (so effectively tripled within a few months) in October. Eventually Truss (formerly employed by Shell) decided the October is would be less than it was going to be, but instead of just bitchslapping the energy providers, she just agreed to pay the difference with taxpayers money and let us poor schmucks foot the bill more gradually.
This is all in against the backdrop of Brexiters claiming we were taking back control and could do things the EU couldn't, yet France was capping price rises and we weren't. Also, while domestic energy bills are capped, business rates are not. There was reports of pubs paying gas & electricity bills in the region of £30k per month. And having to close as a result. Its a miracle more small businesses haven't folded tbh. The government did nothing.

So with everyone struggling already (People were having to choose between food and heat. Some pensioners were using their free bus passes to ride buses all day just to stay warm. Things got pretty bad for far too many people), Truss and Kwarteng decided to cut the higher rate of income tax which I think was for people earning £100k+. The people who weren't struggling at all. Typical conservative BS trickle down economics.
This ludicrously stupid budget caused Sterling to take a dive immediately. That raised suspicions because Kwarteng (who definitely used to work for a hedge fund run by a fella called Crispin Odey and has since been accused of still being paid £20k per month by Odey) went to a champagne lunch with a bunch of hedge funders who had shorted Sterling by selling it before the budget was announced.
The bank of England had to spend £65 Billion to stop the economy collapsing because of their stupid budget, and raise interest rates so all the folks who already couldn't pay their energy bills now have their mortgage payments rocking up as well. Completely needlessly. Oh and thanks to Russia and Brexit, the cost of food has gone up a lot as well already so these two greedy idiots just fucked everyone over completely and thats why she sacked him first to try to save her own skin but had to follow him out because after that utter debacle it turned out she had absolutely nothing else in her locker whatsoever. She was robotic when she spoke, frequently looked like a deer in headlights, was caught hiding from the press and the opposition, turned PMQs on its head by asking questions to the opposition and answering every question she was asked by bleating on repeatedly about how great it was of her to lend us our own money to pay for the exorbitant profits of her former (presumably) employers. (The outgoing CEO of Shell actually said he thought they should be taxed more. Can you imagine how obscene an oil company's profits have to be for them to say that?)

TLDR version: Millions were already poor, her budget choices shat on them from a very great height while handing piles of cash to the rich, and she was a hopelessly unqualified idiot who should never have stood for the job in the first place.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2022, 04:38 PM
 
Sunak is by far the most qualified of the current Tories to be PM. He's still a Tory so he still sucks, but its nice we have our first non-white PM and at least he's intelligent, respectable and competent unlike Truss or Johnson. I actually think he's more honest than the others too and I think he might have more of a conscience. Not much of one, but more than zero which is what the rest have. He is hopeless out of touch though. He's very very rich and has no idea what its like to not be.


Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
"Good" being on a relative grading scale against levels of "shit-show".
There are some other slight positives. Opinion polls have the Conservative Party getting utterly wiped out if there was a General Election tomorrow. They wouldn't even be the official opposition if the polls are right. Which they should be.
Also, I heard today that 60% of the population are on board with rejoining the EU now and the media is starting to shift back that way so that figure is only going to rise if this trend continues. Which it should because the economy still sucks and while energy prices are sky high, it hasn't got cold yet so people haven't been seriously stung like they're going to be.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2022, 05:14 PM
 
People started posting links to this several years back:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founda...of_Geopolitics

Highlights:
- The United Kingdom, merely described as an "extraterritorial floating base of the U.S.", should be cut off from Europe.
- Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.
- Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".
I mean...check, check, and check.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2022, 01:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Sunak is by far the most qualified of the current Tories to be PM. He's still a Tory so he still sucks, but its nice we have our first non-white PM and at least he's intelligent, respectable and competent unlike Truss or Johnson. I actually think he's more honest than the others too and I think he might have more of a conscience. Not much of one, but more than zero which is what the rest have. He is hopeless out of touch though. He's very very rich and has no idea what its like to not be.
Thanks for sharing your impression of him. Half of me is amazed that Truss was chosen over Sunak the last time around. (The other half of me knows about racism …) I hope those 40 days have cured a generation of neoliberalism.

My impression of Sunak is that he is still connected to reality. He has his policy preferences, yes, but he is not suicidal.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Also, I heard today that 60% of the population are on board with rejoining the EU now and the media is starting to shift back that way so that figure is only going to rise if this trend continues. Which it should because the economy still sucks and while energy prices are sky high, it hasn't got cold yet so people haven't been seriously stung like they're going to be.
That one is probably tricky. I reckon you’d need overwhelming support within the population to override the previous Brexit vote, though. 2/3 maybe?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2022, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Thanks for sharing your impression of him. Half of me is amazed that Truss was chosen over Sunak the last time around. (The other half of me knows about racism …) I hope those 40 days have cured a generation of neoliberalism.
I'm sure racism is never far away when it comes to Tories, but I think the reason Truss beat Sunak last time was because she was a member of the ERG and he wasn't. At the time they were running the show by all accounts. Also, she was more of a puppet than him. She has no ideas of her own so she was easy to program. We have an issue with shady right wing "think" tanks that have far too much influence. The ERG is a lobby group made up of Tory MPs and somehow funded with taxpayers money. They are a hard right, anti-EU, anti-free speech, greedy AF bunch of ****s. The there is the IEA. Who are more of the same except they are independent and won't tell anyone who is funding them. Which probably means take your pick from Arron Banks, Murdoch, Rothermere, Putin et al.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
My impression of Sunak is that he is still connected to reality. He has his policy preferences, yes, but he is not suicidal.
With the exception of his beliefs that cutting taxes for the rich will somehow improve things for the poor, yes. He's fiscally far right but not idealogically.As far as I can tell. Its not great that he reappointment Braverman as Home Secretary though. She is awful, another daughter of immigrants who doesn't want anyone enjoying the benefits she got. Wants to deport refugees to Rwanda. Regardless of where they are from. The theory is Sunak needed her to get in and reappointing her was the price. He will likely have to sack her soon.

As many as 17 of his ministers have apparently breached the ministerial code. So in many ways, Sunak doesn't look like a fabulous improvement.


Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That one is probably tricky. I reckon you’d need overwhelming support within the population to override the previous Brexit vote, though. 2/3 maybe?
Right now perhaps. A lot of the 'overarching public feeling' is what is generated by the media. One of the very pro-Tory, pro-Brexit Newspapers has already published a few articles saying it was all a mistake. Once the others and the BBC follow suit, the public will come around quickly. The BBC will for sure be free to talk sense again as soon as we get a Labour government. So hopefully we don't have to wait two years for that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2022, 09:57 AM
 
As a side question, I’ve always been curious what protocols are in place to insulate the BBC from political conflict of interest.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2022, 12:11 PM
 
Ditto. My impression was the BBC is independent of politics. Until very recent stories about conservatives interfering with programming choices.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2022, 12:13 PM
 
It honestly strikes me as a completely untenable setup.

You cannot objectively report on the people who pay you. Full stop.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2022, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It honestly strikes me as a completely untenable setup.

You cannot objectively report on the people who pay you. Full stop.
That's the whole point of having a mandatory license fee.

The PUBLIC pays for BBC programming, as part of their democratic responsibilities. The idea is a financially and politically independent media as a fourth pillar of democracy, hence the responsibility of the public to fund it.

The money may be collected through state channels, but as long as the money is clearly bookmarked and just passed directly along to the broadcast services, using financial extortion to affect content is not an option.

Which is why the conservative government decided to axe the BBC license fee at the end of 2027, without revealing what "alternative means of funding" they might be considering to replace it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2022, 01:23 PM
 
Does news get a percentage set by law?
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2022, 05:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As a side question, I’ve always been curious what protocols are in place to insulate the BBC from political conflict of interest.
There are areas of our democracy and government that blindly rely on 'good old British decency and trust'. It has always worked in the past but those times are dead now. The Tories have abused and undermined every conceivable are of trust in the system. I sense the same is true of conservatives in the US too. The biggest one is Donald Trump's "discovery" of political shamelessness. It used to be that a politician who was caught doing something wrong would resign fairly quick. Do the 'honourable' thing and quit. Many have learned. Boris Johnson rode out two to three scandals a week that would have seen any of his predecessors quit for the duration of his tenure. Truss didn't quit because of public or media pressure. She only went because her party turned on her. And now the Tory recipe is to hit the reset button and act like they get a clean slate with every new idiot. In the past they would have given us the election we all want by now. There is little chance of getting it before its legally mandated in two more years. Maybe if Sunak goes quickly, otherwise not a chance. And I shudder to think which asshole will replace him. There is no-one competent, or even conceivably less than dreadful in their ranks.

As for the BBC, the Tories installed a puppet director who we're all sure definitely isn't steering editorial policy in favour of the Tories at every turn and constantly threaten to remove their funding via the license fee. So the staff there are terrified of saying something the government won't like and now they attack opposition MPs vigorously while letting the Tories talk utter bollocks and get away with it with out so much as a question being raised.
There is a political show called Question Time where they have politicians and journalists and other politically relevant figures on a panel with an audience to ask them questions. They freely admit that despite touring the show to film in different locations around the country, they rig the audience to represent the majority in Parliament. So the show now acts as a strong endorsement of the shitbags in Westminster whereas it used to be a valuable asset in showing up the terrible things they all say and do.

They also want to sell off another publicly owned (but funded commercially) TV network called Channel 4. We're all sure its nothing to do with the fact its the most popular news show that still has a go at the Tories. Their lead anchor was overheard on a hot mic the other week calling a Tory MP a c**t. He wasn't wrong.

The Tories have done here what Trump Republicans have been trying to do in the US all along. And it is disastrous.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2022, 08:44 AM
 
Thank you for the comprehensive reply!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2022, 11:54 AM
 
So, here’s a question.

How much of what the BBC produces lacks commercial viability?

That’s basically the model here. Public television is for things which wouldn’t be able to make enough money to produce as a commercial enterprise, and/or something where it’s preferable not to have commercial involvement, like children’s programming.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2022, 03:19 PM
 
Political, news, investigative reporting, arts, and children‘s programming are ALL areas in which it is important to be independent of commercial viability.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2022, 04:04 PM
 
It might be possible I’m reading too much into it, but “important to be” implies it must be non-commercial to have import. I don’t agree with this claim.

I would agree with the claim it is important non-commercial examples of all these things exist.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2022, 09:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How much of what the BBC produces lacks commercial viability?
You are thinking about it the wrong way around: not everything needs to be commercially viable. News is a good example, having a source that doesn’t have to lean into outrage and BREAKING NEWS is a good thing on its own, it keeps the population informed. While not without flaws (nothing ever really is), Germany’s public news are very careful with their presentation of news up to the choice of words (e. g. distinguishing between accused or suspect until someone has been sentenced in a court of law). Also, they tend to be centrist.

Importantly, you should not think of “state news” in isolation, we are talking about healthy democracies with plenty of other newspapers, news programs and other sources.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That’s basically the model here. Public television is for things which wouldn’t be able to make enough money to produce as a commercial enterprise, and/or something where it’s preferable not to have commercial involvement, like children’s programming.
Public television is meant to be a service, not a money maker. Some of the programming is like having theaters or orchestras, it isn’t meant to provide every type of programming.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It might be possible I’m reading too much into it, but “important to be” implies it must be non-commercial to have import. I don’t agree with this claim.
I think you are misreading the argument. Commercial interests can have detrimental impact on e. g. news and children’s programming. Just compare e. g. Disney’s children’s programs with those of public broadcasters (say, Sesame Street or Sendung mit der Maus). Ditto for news, there is a reason why blatantly partisan news are less popular in countries with a strong public option.

Even if you venture into investigative reporting, in many countries public broadcasters contribute substantially to that. (E. g. in pretty much all the recent leaks and files, in Germany it was Süddeutsche Zeitung (our NYT) and two public broadcasters participating, WDR and NDR.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2022, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You are thinking about it the wrong way around: not everything needs to be commercially viable.


I never said it did. In fact I’m saying the entire point of public television should be for things which aren’t commercially viable.

Hence my question. How much of the BBC lacks commercial viability? It should be all of it.


Edit: the vast majority of it. All of it is too restrictive.
( Last edited by subego; Oct 30, 2022 at 03:28 AM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2022, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It might be possible I’m reading too much into it, but “important to be” implies it must be non-commercial to have import. I don’t agree with this claim.

I would agree with the claim it is important non-commercial examples of all these things exist.
I said nothing of the sort.

I said that no fucks whatsoever must be given about commercial viability of this content.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2022, 04:01 PM
 
A non-commercial project does that by definition.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2022, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A non-commercial project does that by definition.
No, that is not true.

The fact that your funding does not depend on the viability of your programming does NOT mean that you might not — politically or from management — be subject to the same criteria that apply to commercial viability.

I know from experience working within the German public radio system (whose financing was modelled upon the British BBC after the war) that ratings are very much a concern, despite the programs ostensibly not being concerned with commercial interests.

The fact that they are used to gauge relevance and interest, possibly allocate funding within the station, and not to sell ads, effectively doesn't make a difference, when they're used that way.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2022, 06:04 PM
 
Ratings matter in public broadcasting because what determines the value of a broadcast is the extent to which the public consumes it.

Whether that’s a problem depends on the expectations of the broadcaster.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2022, 07:56 PM
 
By and large the BBC makes new stuff without commerciality in mind, but is happy to cash in when they land a hit. In fact they tend to go really all out when they have something very popular and milk it for all its worth.

What they can sell has varied over time. It has been a long time since they produced really good comedy, relying very heavily on their back catalogue. Luckily you guys have learned how to do good comedy to make up for it. Top Gear with Clarkson and co was a big cash cow which is why Clarkson got away with so much but when he clobbered a producer throwing a drunken tantrum, that was that (the sort of integrity our government no longer has). Doctor Who is one they can sell, I think some of their shows have formats they license like they used to with The Weakest Link and still do with Strictly Come Dancing/Dancing With the Stars. Attenborough was always a good seller too. They still have a good nature doc team so that won't dry up completely but he will be a big loss.

They don't really seem to do kids programming like they used to any more. Its only for very young kids I think. Not sure if they own any of Peppa Pig or not. In the 80s and 90s they made all sorts of really good kids shows, and imported other really good ones from Australia and other places.

The BBC runs a bunch of radio stations over here as well as the World Service which you might know. They don't have ads so they must be losing money. For the longest time Radio 1 could make or break the success of a new single by putting it in the rotation or not. For reasons I never understood, the BBC always seemed to be subservient to the record labels about that where they could have been the ones calling the shots. Pity.

Traditionally they've been hot on political correctness, diversity, supporting new talent and impartiality. Its only with the advent of this utterly unscrupulous conservative government they've been co-opted into a propaganda machine. The odd rebel slips through but for the most part they are toeing the line dutifully at every turn.
I feel like when they really start to sense enough blood in the water they might turn around and bite the Tories hard but we aren't quite there yet. Maybe once the general election is in sight.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I never said it did. In fact I’m saying the entire point of public television should be for things which aren’t commercially viable.
I don’t think this is the point: some public broadcasters have financially lucrative programs (BBC’s Top Gear comes to mind). The distinction is whether you design a program with profit in mind or with another motive in mind.

Just think about it more broadly: a lot of things started as a public funded entity (the internet and the WWW come to mind). Creative people/the public sector came up with those, because there was no profit motive involved. Yet, they have become indispensable.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Hence my question. How much of the BBC lacks commercial viability? It should be all of it.
I think there are pockets of the BBC that are lucrative, but I reckon most aren’t. But why should it be all of it? IMHO whether or not something is profitable is precisely the wrong question to ask. The right question is whether the BBC does its job? Making profits is not its job.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 07:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
By and large the BBC makes new stuff without commerciality in mind, but is happy to cash in when they land a hit. In fact they tend to go really all out when they have something very popular and milk it for all its worth.
My mom used to love British crime series, and while I don’t know for sure, I would bet some of them have been BBC productions as well.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
They don't really seem to do kids programming like they used to any more. Its only for very young kids I think. Not sure if they own any of Peppa Pig or not. In the 80s and 90s they made all sorts of really good kids shows, and imported other really good ones from Australia and other places.
I was wondering that, too. Peppa Pig is definitely in rotation on my daughter’s Youtube, no matter whether it is in English, German or Russian. That and Dave’s Little Beasties, a channel dedicated to tarantulas and other big spiders. She is scared of spiders in real life. Kids are weird
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Ratings matter in public broadcasting because what determines the value of a broadcast is the extent to which the public consumes it.
This is completely and utterly wrong.

That is what determines the COMMERCIAL value of a broadcast.

It is completely unrelated to social, political, or cultural value. That was exactly the point I was trying to make.

Dan Rather has a fraction of the reach of Fox News, these days. And yet, his commentary is immeasurably more valuable than that of Tucker Carlson.

In terms of cultural programming, it's vastly more important to represent or illustrate minority cultures, than to reinforce the programming already covered by mainstream commercial broadcast.

That's what "financially independent" means.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Dan Rather has a fraction of the reach of Fox News, these days. And yet, his commentary is immeasurably more valuable than that of Tucker Carlson.
I think what I said was misunderstood.

The ratings of non-commercial projects matter compared to other non-commercial projects.

If people watch Carl Sagan 10 times more than Dan Rather, and they ask for the same money, something’s probably going to have to budge.


As an aside, what financially independent means is “one does not need seek income from other sources, I think a term more fully describing the dynamic involved would be “profit independence”, or “commercial independence”
( Last edited by subego; Oct 31, 2022 at 01:08 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Edit: the vast majority of it. All of it is too restrictive.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But why should it be all of it?
I get the feeling at times what I’m actually saying only merits secondary concern in our discussions.


To answer the question why the vast majority should be non-commercial, it’s because commercial projects already have multiple outlets.
( Last edited by subego; Oct 31, 2022 at 01:55 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Traditionally they've been hot on political correctness, diversity, supporting new talent and impartiality. Its only with the advent of this utterly unscrupulous conservative government they've been co-opted into a propaganda machine.
This smacks of “it’s only propaganda when they do it”.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2022, 02:52 PM
 
Perhaps because they are the primary ones who do it. I've noticed that conservatives are supposedly about freedom, but want to control everything within reach. Like semi-independent agencies.

Even independent people's voices aren't "protesters" - they are "rioters". Unless they are pro-conservative, in which case they are "freedom protesters" - even if they kill cops.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:01 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,