- This topic has 89 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Richard88 wrote:
“BBC3 relaunched as a broadcast channel today I see. A somewhat odd decision I have to say. I’m at the long in the tooth end of the yoof market that it apparently caters for but looking at the drivel served up this evening I and most people I know* wouldn’t have had much interest even when we were 20”
Agreed. Had the formulaic, tawdry dross this channel turned out- and looks like turning out again – existed when I was a gilded youth I would have regarded it as horribly patronising
Mind you, I never was a Club 18-30 type
And on its second night the yoof channel is showing a football match between Burkina Faso and Senegal. A ratings winner.
If it’s found we shouldn’t have been paying the license fee, can we ask for a rebate going back 10, 20 years?
Probably not. They explain when you need a licence, if anyone was daft enough to buy one that they didn’t need then that’s their problem.
BBC Headline.
First article on the 1 OC News, ahead of Ukraine and everything else…
BBC “Exclusive” interview with Novax Djokovic today… even with a Daily Mirror-like square box in the corner of the screen throughout, saying “BBC exclusive”.
How much of our money / our taxes / our license fee has gone to Novax Djokovic / gone to pay for this “exclusive” interview?
Value Is EverythingAgreed f*** the BBC, good to know we as a nation paid the salary of one of the most disgusting peadophiles of modern times as well as paid the salaries of all those executives who covered up his antics.
What a national treasure the BBC is! Been taking our money more forcefully than the Krays for decades, absolute scum, failed business that deserves to sink.
There aren’t enough hours in the day for me to listen to all the podcasts on Sounds, listen to all the music on Radio 6 and watch all the films, documentaries, series etc on BBC 1,2 and 4. I don’t watch their news but apart from that I still find it good value for money.
To be fair I do love a bit of Louis Theroux, I just can’t get behind racketeering paedophile-hiding organisation that makes itself out to be a channel of the people.
Louis Theroux? What does he do that about a billion other people couldn’t? Plays the faux naïf role (and I often find myself wondering just how false it actually is) and generally not much else…
Wouldn’t have got anywhere near our screens if he’d been Louis Smith from a Hull council estate. Nepotism at its finest.
He gets people to open up to him despite being somewhat awkward, he’s a million miles apart from the people he interviews so his interviewees play on his supposed naivety and give him more information than they otherwise might. He is also incredibly non-judgmental, which also makes the people hes talking to feel at ease and be more honest.
Sure there are other people out there that could do it but you could say that about most jobs, it’s not his fault he wasn’t born in a Hull council estate.
Now if we’re arguing about the BBC rather than Theroux himself, then I’d probably agree thinking about it, off the top of my head the majority of their presenters I find bland and boring with no personality.
Saville played him like a violin though, didn’t he? He would never have agreed to do a programme with someone who he considered a threat.
But to be fair I’ll give it ya, those kind of interviews/investigations aren’t Theroux’s strong point.
John Lydon knew the truth about him. So did plenty of others and they did nothing.
Theroux looked like a little boy hopelessly out of his depth. At least he did another film many years later in which he faced up to the inadequacy of the earlier film and his own limitations as an interviewer.
‘At least he did another film many years later in which he faced up to the inadequacy of the earlier film and his own limitations as an interviewer.’
Which in fairness is more than most people have done. Of course the trouble a lot of people have is that to admit fault would involve confirming to us all that they knew.
“Which in fairness is more than most people have done.”
It was. He also met some of Saville’s victims and listened to their reaction to the initial film, which he did not need to do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.