Stuart thought messing with the wires was a good idea.
Photograph by Helen Archer; image modification: Billy Mann
Tuesday, 29 September 2015
Friday, 25 September 2015
Picture: 15 Minutes of Helen
Sunday, 6 September 2015
Diary: What is the BBC for?
There has been a lot of moaning recently about the BBC. The award winning writer/producer/broadcaster/'funnyman' Armando Iannucci has been swinging his verbal axe across the airwaves and in print saying HANDS OFF, you motherfuckers. This is because some members of the current government see the Corporation as an outrage, a lefty mouthpiece and a socialist thorn in the side of the free market. Well, they would, wouldn't they? The BBC is funded through an annual licence fee. This is a compulsory payment that entitles the license holder to own and use devices that can receive radio and TV transmissions. In other words, if you don't buy a licence, you can't listen to the radio or watch the telly. I am not sure what the rules are concerning the use of computers and the world wide web to access these products, but to enemies of the BBC, it is seen as a crafty form of taxation, and one that in a fair world would be replaced by a subscription system, in which customers can pick and choose their broadcasting according to taste. In other words, if you don't want Strictly Come Dancing, you will not be asked to pay for it.
On the surface, this does not sound too outrageous. Subscriptions are, after all, optional, a contract entered into freely, supply and demand, etc. But that, for me, is not the chief issue here. To illustrate my position, think for a moment what kind of society we would have were, say, education delivered in the same way. Or health, or refuse collection, or wars in other people's countries? There are many aspects of modern life that come to use via the mechanisms of state and local agencies. If Tony Blair had asked each and every one of us to 'subscribe' to the Iraq War, would you have said yes and reached for your wallet?
So maybe it is best not to think of the BBC as a service in the active, transactional sense but as a cultural investment that safeguards a way of life and a desire for some kind of interesting, entertaining and educational circumspection. In other words, you might not like all of it, all of the time, but you know it is good to have and to have around for future generations to make use of (yes, even CBBC), so shut up and cough up the annual £140, or whatever it is. Be thankful it exists, because if my parents had been asked to pay as you go on Jackanory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackanory), I am not sure I would be the person I am today.
FURTHER READING
http://gu.com/p/4eeqq?
On the surface, this does not sound too outrageous. Subscriptions are, after all, optional, a contract entered into freely, supply and demand, etc. But that, for me, is not the chief issue here. To illustrate my position, think for a moment what kind of society we would have were, say, education delivered in the same way. Or health, or refuse collection, or wars in other people's countries? There are many aspects of modern life that come to use via the mechanisms of state and local agencies. If Tony Blair had asked each and every one of us to 'subscribe' to the Iraq War, would you have said yes and reached for your wallet?
So maybe it is best not to think of the BBC as a service in the active, transactional sense but as a cultural investment that safeguards a way of life and a desire for some kind of interesting, entertaining and educational circumspection. In other words, you might not like all of it, all of the time, but you know it is good to have and to have around for future generations to make use of (yes, even CBBC), so shut up and cough up the annual £140, or whatever it is. Be thankful it exists, because if my parents had been asked to pay as you go on Jackanory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackanory), I am not sure I would be the person I am today.
FURTHER READING
http://gu.com/p/4eeqq?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)