Does the Government enforce it?
I was lead to believe that the collection of the money was contracted out to Post Office Counters Ltd (or whatever it is called these days) and that the BBC, a non Government body, takes non-payers to court.
Spite I’m confused. The story you quote starts by quoting a memo from a BBC journalist outraged that the BBC has what he perceives to be a bias towards negative comment on the war. The story then goes on to mention others who criticize the BBC for not having sufficent negative content regarding the war.
Which seems to show that the Beeb is getting it right, if they are sufficiently “up the middle” to cop criticism from both sides.
How on earth do you say that what you quote supports your conclusion?
The BBC took over responsibility for collection from the Home Office in 1991, and now the TV Licensing Authority, a unit of the BBC, collects the fees. However, the tax is established by the Wireless and Telegraphy Act (1949) and non-payment of the tax is subject to criminal prosecution. From the BBC:
So TVLA operates under authority of the government and identifies TV scofflaws (in part, through use of their mobile TV detection van) for criminal prosecution.
I see nothing in Dyke’s comments that could reasonably be interpreted as being anti-competition. Fox News doesn’t broadcast in the UK and the differences in style and content between the BBC and Fox makes it unlikely that the BBC would lose market share to Fox if it did broadcast here. If Dyke wanted to protect the BBC from competition he would have criticised ITN’s or Channel 4’s coverage of the Iraq war.
So far in this thread we’ve heard arguments about the BBC’s funding, remarks in favour of variety in news sources, comparison between Fox News and Iraqi propaganda, milder criticism of Fox News for being biased, claims that Fox is right to be biased, claims that the BBC is biased, arguments about contrasting perceptions of the political spectrum from either side of the Atlantic etc. etc. Only Spite has claimed to enjoy watching Fox News.
Swami has already asked this and has failed to get a response, but will anybody here try to show why Dyke’s comments were incorrect?
There is little the BBC can do about ITN or Channel 4 at this point. However, Rupert Murdoch has made clear that he wants to have a satellite service available in the UK, possibly targeting BSkyB. Maybe you’re right and the News Corp. broadcasts will bomb. But maybe you’re wrong. In any event, increased competition is always a risk. If new competitors manage to take market share from the BBC, then there is a weaker argument for continued public funding.
Define “correct”. Any news reporting is going to have some sort of bias based on culture, history, and sometimes ideology. Are you asking somebody to disprove that the BBC is “better” than US? The BBC broadcasts are different than CNN. Both have been criticized, but identifying which is “better” is going to depend on individual perspective which is also influenced by culture, history, and ideology.
I think it’s a little silly to try to “prove” that the BBC or NBC are better or worse. There’s really no fixed criteria by which to judge. Was the BBC “pro-Saddam”? I defy you to “prove” that – it’s a ridiculous proposition.
It should give you something to think about that you have to resort to insults to make an argument.
Let’s put your money where your mouth is: The news coverage of how many different countries in how many different languages have you sampled extensively? How many during the war?
You see, there is one key difference between the BBC and US media: All someone needs to get a totally different spin on things in the UK is a satellite dish and some knowledge of foreign languages (and in some cases, a TV capable of decoding foreign TV norms). The same satellites feeding the UK feed France, Germany, the Alps, Scandinavia and the iberian and italian peninsulas (And some of eastern Europe on top). If anyone would think that the BBC is providing pro-government propaganda, nothing is easier than watching a station which most definitely is not inclined to cater to the british government.
US media, on the other hand, has a tendency to fall into support of the government in times of crisis precisely because of the idea, propagated not the least by a large part of their customers, especially among the right, that you have to support the government in times of crisis. Thus even media outlets that had been critical of the government support it when there is a war at hand. Best example is the Washington Post, classically a more liberal paper, which actually resorted even to character assassination of the German foreign minister in its support for the White House.
Such a behavior would be met with outrage in some European country, were for historical reasons, times of crisis are considered as times where you should watch the fingers of the government with extra care and be all the more critical of its actions. Not the least, flip-flopping your outlook on things just because people are shooting at each other is not exactly a testimony of integrity.
The BBC journalist was complaining that the Beeb’s coverage did not give an accurate picture of the situation in Iraq- He says that “The truth is exactly the opposite” of what was reported. The only “others” in the article is Labour MP Alice Mohan, who has been vehemently anti-war from the get-go and who wants the BBC to show more casualties (note that she doesn’t say that the BBC is reporting innacurately, just that they should show more casualties). So on the one hand you’ve got a BBC journalist in the Middle East complaining that the reporting is factually incorrect, and on the other an anti-war politician in London who doesn’t complain about factual inaccuracies, rather that they don’t show enough “war is hell” footage. It doesn’t sound like “two sides” of the issue- they’re two different issues*.
[sub]*and if these really were two sides of the issue (which I don’t think they are) agreeing that the BBC’s coverage was incorrect, I don’t think you split it down the middle and interpret it as “getting it right”, I think it’s more that everyone can agree that they’re wrong.[/sub]
Rupert Murdoch already does have a satellite service in the UK (Sky News) and News Corp owns 36% of BSkyB. If Fox News was to be added to the mix the BBC need not be worry much, it would take market share from other satellite news services first. In any case, Dyke’s remarks are not complaints against the liberalisation of the broadcasting market in the UK, but qualitative criticisms of certain American broadcasters.
I’m not asking anyone to “prove” anything, just to address the OP. I won’t bother trying to define the word “correct” as I’m sure you can find a dictionary somewhere to do that for you.
Dyke has expressed the view that Fox News (and US networks in general) are so biased as to give their viewers a false and misleading impression of the war in Iraq. The OP is asking whether you agree with those statements and for arguments to back your POV. No absolute proof is required and you are the first person to introduce the word “better” to the discussion.
Having not seen Fox News I cannot comment directly, but I do believe that if news does not at least question the nature, progress and predictable consequences of a war, then the viewers of that news are likely to be left in a state of ignorance which is dangerous for any democracy. It is also symptomatic of propagandist news media in countries we generally consider to be deficient in freedom.
It’s a matter of fact that no UK broadcaster has participated in organising pro- or anti-war rallies, but Dyke accuses Clear Channel radio stations of excessive impartiality because their staff have organised such rallies. Surely you can express your own opinion about whether those sentiments are fair or not?
Thanks everton, 
you pretty much summed up my feelings.
So, are there any more FOX viewers out there? Your opinions would be greatly welcomed.
Why? That’s just an assumption you’re making. The greater the number of content providers, the tougher the competition for all.
I disagree. I think his comments can be read in the context of Murdoch’s increased emphasis on a larger presence and the BBC’s dispute with Sky TV which might well significantly decrease viewership of BBC1 and BBC2.
Unfortunately, I only have biased US dictionaries to consult. But when you ask somebody to “show” how Dyke is wrong that seems to imply you are looking for proof, unless you misposted and meant to put this in IMHO.
Depends on your point of view, which is why these discussions are generally fruitless. Is focusing on the success wrong or biased? How much should be devoted to collateral damage? It’s all a matter of perspective and opinion. As for misleading, I’ll note that at least one BBC reporter denied the US troops had taken Saddam Airport, and said it was an example of the US military concocting fantasies. Problem was, the US had taken the airport and the reporter was in a remote area out of view of the main part of the airport. Does this betray anti-war or anti-US bias? The answer will generally depend on the individual’s own biases.
I don’t think news organizations should organize rallies. But what Mr. Dyke failed to mention is that (a) Clear Channel had no policy and the rallies were organized by affiliates, and (b) the stations were pop or country/western music stations – not news outlets. I think Mr. Dyke massaged the facts to fit his view.
Who has their facts massaged to fit their view?
The argument that Dyke’s comments were “wrong” because they were out of self-interest is patently stupid. Of course they were. But what about the comments themselves?
Pffft! I know you’re trying to paint a picture of Orwellian oppression by government and corporation december, but this is a very poor attempt!
Cite on that ‘internet broadcast’ bit? News to me.
Cite? A search warrant would only be issued if there is particularly strong evidence of a breach of the law. They don’t get issued just on a whim and a “lookee see”.
False. I could go buy a TV for cash tomorrow and no-one would ever know who I was.
They may do, but they have no authority to enter anyone’s home without permission.
False. How could they possibly do this? The Royal Mail do not keep a database of peoples’ homes, they just deliver to where it says on the envelope.
False. A poll tax is per head, the TV licence is per household.
Tax on free speech??? Can anyone explain this?
Anyone heard of an industry that doesn’t have administrative overheads??
Mr. Dyke. According to this:
There was no corporate policy by Clear Channel.
I don’t necessarily believe they’re “wrong” because they’re self-interested. My original post simply said I didn’t think his comments were a big deal because they were coming from somebody who had a vested interest in protecting his turf. I thought it might be helpful to view things through that prism, that’s all.
As for whether they’re true, my point has been all along that arguing who or who is not biased is difficult if not impossible because that’s judged in light of the individual’s own biases.
I thought that this thread was to debate media bias, and I eventually got around to pointing out the difficulty in doing so. If its just opinion, it should be in IMHO. And I’d point out that you will generally get responses from those with the biggest ideological axes to grind.
Zoff, OK, so we have the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune saying one thing, and Clear Channel executives saying another. Which party do you believe has the least amount of self-interest at stake? Who do you suspect would be more biased?
Please note that actions taken by an employee of a Clear Channel station (affiliate is not an appropriate term, these are stations owned by Clear Channel, and we are talking about employees of Clear Chanel) does not absolve the company of responsibility.
I don’t know if you did this deliberately AZCowboy, but you cite the Washington Post as the source, but it’s just a verbatim quote from an opinion piece in The American Prospect. That’s misleading.
I’m not interested in whether Clear Channel is “absolved” of anything. Mr. Dyke implied that Clear Channel organized the rallies as part of corporate policy, but that’s not true. He also compared it to the BBC. But there is no comparison between the BBC and “Big Hits 103.1”. The former is a news organization, the latter is for entertainment. The characterizations by Mr. Dyke were misleading. That’s my point.
And, further to my posts about fearing competition, Mr. Dyke blasted Clear Channel which, Mr. Dyke fears, “wants to become a big player in radio in the United Kingdom when it is deregulated later this year.”
Actually I was just trying to get some information, and this was the first site that I happened to find.
That “internet broadcast bit” came from a cite.
I read an article some time ago about TV inspectors who use electronics to check houses for illegal, unregistered TVs. People that they catch are punished.
Why do I know things about this subject that you don’t, Futile Gesture? You live there and I don’t.
Zoff, first, I did not intentionally misattribute that information to the Washington Post. Upon review, I agree, the information referenced the American Prospect opinion piece, and was from the Washington Post website. I should have been more careful. However, the statement is attributed to the Chicago Tribune. So I retract my statements regarding the Washington Post. I reassert my question (with the Chicago Tribune) otherwise.
That isn’t quite the whole story. You have implied that Clear Channel is only in the music business, or even country music business. That is far from the truth. It is the largest owner of radio stations in the US, including talk radio.
Further, pending action regarding the concentration of media asset ownership is in front of the FCC (chaired by Colin Powell’s son) and will have a significant impact on Clear Channel’s business (and ultimately, profits).
And finally, from the cite you provide, I am unable to see how Mr. Dyke implied it was Clear Channel policy. He just said it was Clear Channel, and that is accurate.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by AZCowboy
Zoff, first, I did not intentionally misattribute that information to the Washington Post.
[QUOTE]
I assumed you didn’t, but I wanted to verify.
The Chicago Tribune reported that Clear Channel stations sponsored rallies and that the “common link” was Clear Channel Worldwide, Inc. The American Prospect piece then misrepresents that the Tribune reported that Clear Channel Worldwide, Inc. organized the rallies. However, that’s not what the Tribune story says – it only says that the rallies were sponsored by “Clear Channel stations.” The same story quotes the Clear Channel spokesperson as saying that any rallies were organized by individual stations, not CCWI. So the Tribune article does not say what you claim, and your other cite is a mischaracterization of the story in that it implies corporate sponsorship.
So the information is not contradictory. Some stations – not CCWI – organized rallies. There is no dispute between the Tribune article and the explanation of CCWI.
You can argue that CCWI should have had a policy, but that’s different. And I reassert my statement that these stations were pop and country/western stations, not news stations from every report I’ve seen. Allowing a morning DJ to organize a rally is not sufficient proof that CCWI is too biased to be a legitimate source of information.
Every major newspaper has an editorial and reporting staff. Does the existence of an editorial staff prove that the newspaper is incapable of giving independent information?
Mr. Dyke blasted the Clear Channel “group” which implies the entire organization. But apparently on 1% of Clear Channel stations were involved in rallies. That’s simply misleading.
A few facts from my personal experience of the UK TV Licence.
I know a few people who’ve never paid the licence in their lives - they buy TV’s (VCRs, TV Capture cards etc.) with cash and if delivery is required they have them sent to their next-door-neighbour - few if any of them have been bothered (but see further down ;).
‘Detector Vans’ and the like are a total myth - there isn’t a reliable technology to detect a TV in use and there never has been. The old vans were empty (except for the driver and someone turning a handle to make an aerial turn on the roof - really!!) - all enforcement is done by tracking addresses and sending threatening letters in the hope people will cave-in and pay.
Fines tend to be levied where people are stupid and allow someone to observe a TV through a window or similar - and once the licensing authority is confidant they are evading they just hammer the people through court where there is little ‘defence’ - lying about TV ownership would be perjury etc. etc.
A friend of a friend has no TV and no desire to own one. A couple of years ago he started to get threatening letters from the Licencing Authority reminding him that he did not have a licence and if he was found with a TV could face ‘substantial fines’ (£1000 - about $1800 at the time I think). This went on for some months - however he came home one day to find that the large advertising hoarding across the street from his home bore a HUGE poster saying
“Only one home in XXX Street does not have a TV Licence - well done to the others!” - or something along those lines…!
The threatening letters continued for months too - you could feel victimised then?
Despite this I tend to support the licence as I do feel the BBC does a lot of good with the money.
I’ve heard the argument that if there’s a market for advertisment-free-television then they should charge a subscription to those people only rather than ‘taxing everyone’ for it - but I don’t agree with the same principle applied to education or health so I don’t agree with it for broadcasting either.
In this era of 300 channels of lowest-common-denominator rubbish liberally interpersed with banal and annoying ‘brain washing’ - the BBC shines like a beacon at times.
TTFN
JP