the fourth place linkblog

Hi Simon,

The BBC IS biased, not ARE biased. (The BBC is singular.)That's if the BBC is in fact bias, or do you mean a journalist at the BBC is bias? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on whether it's the institution, the culture or individuals that cause bias? And, is it possible to be objective? I think not.

Anyway, just thought I would say hi. BTW, I never realised you were so young. Or that you liked clubbing.

I have written a piece about free speech in Australia you might be interested in reading. It basically blames you guys (the British) for oppressing us in the early colonial days. Apparently, some of our convicts were 'free speakers' sent out for their dissenting views against the King. Love it! Explains our lack of respect for authority.

x Kate, Your friendly copywriter

So you think homosexuals and non-Caucasian English people are biased, by nature, whereas white middle class men are objective and will provide you with the FACTS? Lucky you have the Daily Mail to 'keep the bastards honest' as they say here in Australia.

DO you think the BBC purposely hires gay people, and is this a pre-requisite for getting a job there? And how do you think being gay affects your reporting of say, the war in Iraq? How would your heterosexual account be different to, say, Mike's homosexual account? How would being Muslim affect reporting? Surely a Muslim-English person would be more aware of both sides than your true blue pom?

On a diff note, Australia's news is domintated by a Muslim leader who said in a sermon that women who dress immodestly are like uncovered meat and it's not the cats fault for eating it... Check out the cartoons by Bleak http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/

Here is some of the speech made by the Islamic leader:

If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.

If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened.

Here is all of it:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20656690-28737,00.html

Not sure I support freedom of speech!! He reminds me of a man I heard at Speaker's Corner. Shut up, I say.

He also makes reference to the injustice that a (Muslim) man got 65 years jail for his participation in gang rapes of young girls. Apparently, the girls caused it.

(Hmmn... this page seems to be appearing in a rather random order. Readers should make use of the timestamps)

Kate, regarding your on topic questions, I regard the opinions of all minorities to be equally important but I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about a series of points made in the Mail on Sunday (of all places!) which I had frankly ignored. As it happens I tend to agree that the Mail was being somewhat phobic.

What's important are the claims that the BBC support certain political points of view and given that those still resident in the UK are forced (literally, forced using violence) to pay for the BBC its unacceptable that they have a point of view at all, let alone a view which is held as a matter of policy.

Obviously, given that it isn't really possible for any individual outlet to be unbiased, I am really arguing for the destruction of the BBC's news function.

Two things.

One. Are you saying people should not have to pay for a public broadcasting service? And if this is what you're saying, then how do you justify your argument? Or are you just saying No News on the BBC? Either way, I totally disagree. The BBC is am amazing resource that the rest of the world envies.

Two. Readers shouldn't have to make use of time stamps, whatever they might be. Web designers should make better use of IT skills. ;)

You have not correctly restated the argument. The BBC can have news if the BBC wants, but taxpayers money cannot be used to pay for it, just like the Mail should not be paid for by taxpayers - as I'm sure you would agree.

The BBC is quite good at serious drama and natural history, but why not form a charity to run that?

There is actually an argument for nationalised broadcasting equipment (it's infrastructure, like roads) but I have issues with all content, particularly the news, and also educational programs.

So the BBC should be a commercial organisation, rather than a publicly-funded one? In other words, you don't see a need for a public broadcaster at all? This means, like the commercial stations, the BBC would be focused on profit - shareholder value, which means increasing advertising revenue - at the expense of serving the public interest (such as giving a voice to minority and disadvantaged groups).

I don't see how a charity could possibly fund the BBC. I imagine what you are saying, based on your libertarian views, is that people should be able to choose whether they pay for it, that is, by donating to the charity. No way, jose.

You can quantify in economic terms the social value of a public broadcaster. Of course, if the status quo favours, as it does, affluent members of society (consumers), so too does journalism. (Why would mass markets pay to hear minority view points, for instance?) By taking out the commercial constraints, journalism (news) can serve its funtion to uphold democracy. If you focus just on money, you end up with Big Brother and The Sun.

Everyone has a role in making sure we maintain a healthy democracy. We all must make a financial contribution to important social services, like the BBC, that are the closest we have to a free press. It's vital, despite the often ignorant views of those that oppose it coming out of 'tax payers' money' because they don't recognise its importance to free speech.

Tell me, would you be willing to beat somebody up for not paying a licence fee for their telly? If you are not willing to do that then you are a hypocrit, because that is how the system in the UK works. If there was no ultimate point at which licence payers knew violence would be used then the system of fines would not be a workable option.

You want a quiet life where each approved category of view gets its alloted airtime through one giant perfect monolith of a free press.

I prefer many free presses - all biased and imperfect - all having a ferocious argument.

You see a respectable, reasonable, and high quality news channel doing its job as a journalistic enterprise.

I see an thugs driving round in vans snooping on people and those same people's homes being invaded to check they are not hiding a TV - all to pay for journalistic output of which I personally disapprove.

You see sheep that need to be hearded by an animal into coughing up for the BBC because otherwise it wouldn't happen.

I see a world full of amazing opportunities to raise vast amounts of wealth populated by adults willing to contribute to the creation and direction of the wealth.

You see a world in which the neglect and ultimate loss of one particular institution would be fatal to those things you feel are right and good.

I see a market economy and a civil society capable of replacing any great thing for which there is a demand.

I see a BBC funded by citizens who are willing to give up their cash to pay for it because they believe - as you say - that they have "a role" to play.

You see subjects - each with their assigned role to play - forced with violence to pay for it because you feel its right.

Kate, its been honestly a lot of fun, but I am not persuaded. I'm going to go watch 18 Doughty Street now, and I expect to enjoy it.

Hi Simon, You sound like my cab driver last night. He was French and I made the mistake of asking him how he liked Madame Royale. He doesn't think French women belong in politics or the police force. He ranted and raved all the way from Stanley Street to Erskineville. I shut up and made reassuring noises.

Basically he didn't know what he was talking about and I realised arguing was not only a waste of time, but possibly self-destructive.

And, yes I would hit you for getting rid of the BBC. Have you read Vernon God Little? It shows you what the US media is like.

Are libertarians anti-tax altogether?

How's the job going? Any interesting news? Any new cute guys started?

I haven't read the book, but I assume you mean its biased and dumbed down.

If we're limiting this argument to TV as it operates today then you're right on the point you raise. The scarcity of physical transmission channels for TV creates incentives to be popular (i.e. to dumb down) and to form alliances with institutions (e.g. specific popular political parties or ideological groupings) in an attempt to draw those large audiences.

If all you did was simply take away the BBC then dumbing down might be the result, but you have to ask yourself whether that matters so much that you are prepared to commission violence in your name. It could be that poor broadcast television means audiences instead turn other media such as newspapers which would become better and more diverse as a result of increased demand. Bad TV combined with better newspapers doesn't seem so wrong, actually - and this is pretty much what I argued earlier.

Alternatively I could argue ad-hoc that changing the way TV itself operates would mitigate the problems.

For example, historically, the TV you receive is allocated spectrum by the Government and you choose the bit of spectrum to receivee. That system of allocation hasn't changed in a very long time. We now have digital TV which tends to increase the number of available signals, but it is still a centralised system of allocating from a limited set of numeric values. Its a completely artifcal process, that incentivises dumbing down since the TV channels lucky enough to have spectrum are forced to get viewers by being the best at attracting attention from a broad range of people - rather than by having the best TV.

That's the historic perspective is basically summarised as an artificial scarcity maintained by the Government's inertia.

Looking forward from the present we now have podcasting, blogging, videocasting, internet TV and radio. This is already amazing and is improving steadily. The last technical problem is making it easy to package enough of it sensibly to create the kind of passive viewing experience people are used to with TV. You will then be able to choose from any of a limitless number of packages for passive viewing or acively seek out the content you require as we already do.

All that is happening on IPv4, but when IPv6 arrives the cost model for this type of transmission will change from increasing linearly with the size of the audience to increasing probably logarithmically. Therefore the cost barriers to setting up your own TV channel will drop dramatically and there is no real limit to the number of people that can run a mass-media outlet.

In this type of environment - the "many free presses" I referred to earlier - a bad TV station is simply one of millions and it doesn't matter that even 90% of them are like this. People will still be able to watch the 10% that aren't and therefore people's media experience as a whole will never suffer from the same problems as we do under the current model.

Anyway, I had intended to close the thread with my earlier tirade and will now do so. If you want to argue any more (which I understand you probably don't) then either email me or start your own blog ;-)