|
U-Know! Forum » tv license rant /the bastards |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Mar 12, 2003, 14:08
|
||
|
>Do some people without televisions still buy >consumer products? Do some people who watch >adverts never buy the products being advertised? > >If the answer to either question is "yes", then >licence fees and ad revenues are fundamentally >different. Is that still so if, as is the case, some people with a TV never watch BBC? >To draw an equivalency between them is therefore >unjustified. Hmmm, more a comparison than an equivalency. >To suggest there are equivalent levels of coercion >mystifies me. I'm not saying there's equivalent levels of coercion (although it's impossible to opt out of the advertising budget for products you buy), but I am saying there's an equivalent level of payment made for a TV service.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Mar 12, 2003, 14:11
|
||
|
I find it much less Uk ruling-class than the domestic BBC. Far more balanced in the Iraq coverage. And loads of interesting stuff you'd never get elsewhere. The other night there was a 15 minute interview with a French guy who tightrope walked between the towers of the World Trade Center. Utterly illegal thing for him to have done, and yet the coverage was in a total praise-tone. The only thing I can't handle is the soap opera Westway, but I'll let that off cos the theme tune is so good, and anyway, like everything else on the WS, it's only 15 minutes long and there'll be something interesting afterwards.
|
|||
necropolist 1689 posts |
Mar 12, 2003, 14:43
|
||
|
the theme tune is good??/ you're a bloody weirdo you are, mate! otherwise you are quite right that it is the worst thing by far on the entirety of UK radio, not just the World Service. really unbelievably and unutterably bad. As to being the official voice of the ruling-class...well it is for sure the official voice of the foreign office. It really does follow foreign office lines and guidance on all sorts of issues. It's more the Daily telegraph than Daily Mail, which is in part why it is so much better. obviously it has a rather less strident tone than the Telegraph, but it is fundamentally similar (even the DT reports on radical stuff, interviews protestors and caries columns by lefties - not often enough, but neither does the WS, it's just that they are nmore obvious on there). As an international broadcaster, it has to cover world affairs far more reasonably than the UK arm, but in each case it is still following foreign office guidance (the Fo is often considered to be far more 'left-wing' than other government departments, even n the days of thatcher, largely because it has to go out and deal with said foreign governments, rather than just the sad little englanders.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Mar 12, 2003, 15:11
|
||
|
Right [rolls up sleeves] Firstly, you're correct necropolist. When i said that the connection between consumer spending and advertising budgets is "so abstract to be meaningless" i was wrong. That (in my defence) wasn't really what i was thinking; but reading it back now - the statement is clearly silly. There's a very direct link between the two. HOWEVER. What i was actually objecting to (but in a clumsy and indistinct manner) was Merrick's statement that: > > If not watching the BBC should qualify for a > rebate on the TV license, shouldn't not > watching TV qualify for a rebate on your > groceries? > which i still think makes no real sense. And (unusually for Merrick) displays a lack of analysis of the situation. Folks can stop reading now, as i'm about to get all abstract and analytical. And it's all a bunch of philosophical hypothesising really. Firstly; let's say you're Jo Smith. You own a TV but never watch BBC. You are paying 100 quid for a service that you do not receive. If you refuse to pay, you get arrested and sent to jail. Pretty straight-forward. Pretty unjust (most people would agree) given that you *genuinely* never watch the beeb. Next; you're Alex Jones. You don't own a TV but clearly do still buy groceries. Are you paying for a service you don't avail of? Well, the argument being put forward (by Merrick), if i understand it correctly, is that some of your grocery bill goes on the ad budget of the companies from whom you purchase your goods. Therefore, because you don't watch the ads, you are paying for a service you don't receive. Is that the crux of the argument? If it's not - if some other point is being made - then i'm just not understanding it; and someone'll need to spell it out more clearly. This assumes that the advertisements are a service to the consumer (which - although they may be painted that way by the marketers - is clearly false). Advertising is a service *to the advertiser*. It is possible to buy groceries from outlets that do not advertise on TV. Just go to the local farmer's market if you have one, or corner green-grocer who buys from the nearest farmer's market. You'll find an interesting fact. The food may be measurably better (it often is), but it'll also be slightly more expensive than - say - Tesco. The reason for this is because the big companies can work with economies of scale. They know they have a consumer base of millions, not hundreds; and can therefore buy in much bigger bulk, and apply consequently smaller margins (only slightly smaller - but enough to be noticeable). Now, this may not be a universal thing. But it's a fact here in Northeast London. The local shops and markets are more expensive than the big chain stores. For this reason i shop in the chain-stores when i'm skint, and on the markets when i've just got a contract. It is completely legitimate to argue that one of the factors that allows these economies of scale to work is precisely the fact that these conglomerates have large marketing budgets (there are plenty of other reasons - by far the biggest being to do with the 'concentration of capital' which is an inevitable result of capitalism). I think the system sucks. I think global capitalism is a rotting corpse that's leaking maggots onto every spare piece of physical and psychological space on the planet. I think marketing is one of the most putrid of those maggots. But i honestly don't see how you can argue that advertising is a "service" to consumers in the same way that the BBC is a service to TV watchers. Which is (i believe) the implication of Merrick's statement. Am i wrong?
|
|||
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Mar 12, 2003, 15:25
|
||
|
Would it be stupid of me to point out that although the license fee pays for the BBC it is in fact a license to own a television and not a subscription to the BBC? I'm sure there's an analogy to public transport in there somewhere. Y'know deregulated buses...private ones Vs public funded...should get a council tax rebate....
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Mar 12, 2003, 15:53
|
||
|
okay-dokey....sleeves rolled, hands chalked, gloves on..... aqk does of course have a point that the license fee is a license to watch any telly, not specifically the beeb, but that doesn't really affect the 'moral'# argument. so i'm ignoring it! as to grufty's argument - firstly I assume Jo has a telly, so she does actually RECEIVE the beeb, but chooses not to watch it. But that is just a pedantic aside. Alex is obviously the key person here - so the question is what service does the non-tv owner not avail themselves of? You seem to think that its the adverts themselves themselves grufty, whereas I think - and it seems to be what merrick is saying too - that its the PROGRAMMES (sorry for shouting). The adverts are merely paying for the programmes to be made, but even tho I do not watch the programmes I am being expected to pay for them - and unlike the license fee, i have no real choice on many many occassions (buying non-advertised goods is very tricky indeed, tho not impossible, but a separate argument i think anyway). .....bobs back to the corner and removes gumshield so as to have a quick fag between rounds...
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
