101–110 of 135 posts
Who cares if you can get a snippet of “South American parrot talking and screeching,” I can get that anywhere. Cool Dr. Who sound effects (or whatever your favorite show is) in good quality is what I think of when I see BBC sound effects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems quite a contrast to the early 80s, when they sponsored/commissioned their own branded home computer, promoted it on half the TV channels in the country and got it into every school in the country.
The government today is ideologically and politically opposed to the existence of the BBC, go figure. I don't think Thatcher was exactly a fan back in the 80s but equally they had more pressing matters to attend to
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> where you may earn some revenue through adverts This is commercial use and paid.
It really isn't as clear as that. Most youtube videos are not monetised, but the status could change years later. Further, in an hour long video, using a 5 second audio clip with an advertising revenue of £0.10 is considered commercial and a payment?
Well there better be some good Dr. Who in there somewhere. Exterminate! We are sentient beings!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? It seems unambiguously straightforward to me on reflection.
For one thing, as other people are trying to explain, opposition parties are not "unelected". It's also unclear, to me at least, what you mean by "proposed" and by "shills" and who these people are, specifically, who you claim control the BBC and print media, since despite specifically referring to "Labour" you said you don't mean it's Labour.
> The Labour opposition had proposed that activist shills take control of the editorial policy of ...
It's your turn to ask for "evidence please", I believe. (-:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's quite different to the WWW site that is seen within the U.K.. I browse both regularly and they’re basically the same content just with an advert. Not really sure what you’re talking about.
Many parts are completely inaccessible from abroad.
Anything the BBC releases has to pass a market distortion test to make sure that it doesn't affect the competition - even commercial projects built by the commercial arm of the BBC (which doesn't receive any license fee funding) BBC Jam for example was a project back in 2006 offering multi-media educational resources free across the UK. This was 2 years before Khan Academy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/465529…
That seems quite a contrast to the early 80s, when they sponsored/commissioned their own branded home computer, promoted it on half the TV channels in the country and got it into every school in the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting the editorial direction has been set by the government? Please provide evidence if so
The BBC is overseen by a government minister
The head of the Radio division is literally an ex Labour minister, in Blair/Brown government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For one thing, as other people are trying to explain, opposition parties are not "unelected". It's also unclear, to me at least, what you mean by "proposed" and by "shills" and who these people are, specifically, who you claim control the BBC and print media, since despite specifically referring to "Labour" you said you don't mean it's Labour.
> opposition parties are not "unelected". unelected to government. > , who you claim control the BBC and print media, since despite specifically referring to "Labour" you said you don't mean it's Labour. I didn't use a present tense. Corbyn et al had a proposal to take control of editorial departments of major newspapers and tv media to set the agenda. Your difficulty in reading comprehension is hardly relevant to th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The deal differs from other sound libraries in that educational purposes are covered by a quite different licence to commercial purposes. This is reflective of the mandate of the Royal Charter that incorporates the BBC, that it "support learning". The various restrictions on endorsement and representation and suchlike in the RemArc licence reflect the Royal Charter's imposition that the BBC itself be non-commercial.…
Thats very interesting, you seem to know a lot about how the BBC is structured. Do you mind if I ask how the for-profit prohibition of their charter aligns with the ad-supported international BBC News websites and broadcasts on BBC Worldwide?
BBC Worldwide is an independent for-profit organization and, for the most part, responsible for the commercialization of BBC assets outside of the UK as the BBC itself is not able to commercialize.
Assets like Top Gear are an example of that - the show's production budget is(/was) unusually high because the BBC produces it for the world market where it knows it will generate a significant return selling the licenses (or broadcasting on BBC America etc). Compare that to domestic shows, such as Have I Got News For You, which is not shown abroad.
The advertising on BBC Website is placed by BBC Worldwide and they receive the money from that.
Profits made by BBC Worldwide are dispersed back into the BBC itself.
Aside from Worldwide the BBC has split up and sold or commercialized other assets. Much of the technical infrastructure it owned became RedBee and was invested in by Castle and/or Siemens (my memory is fuzzy). They also broke off their studio facilities into BBC Studios which I believe now operate commercially.
The BBC has been pushed considerably by Tory governments to becomes smaller over time which has resulted in these sell offs and break offs.
I've not worked at the BBC for 15 years but follow it closely and can probably answer other questions you might have.