Oh damn, still in this dream.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/golf/49016675

Now I'm not a player of the Scottish game; golf is, for me, something that other folk do. I have tried it; my ex's family are all golfistes of skill and dexterity, and I played for a term at school as it was a long relaxed bunk-off from other more onerous scholarly pursuits, or worse, other sports or games that weren't cricket, swimming, or table-tennis. (I seem to recall a term with the épée too; the things our childish conceits put us through.)

Anyway, gratuitous history aside, this exchange between Mr Woods and Gavin Andrews shows that British regional accents, no matter how euphonious or otherwise, don't necessary translate into the wider media. I've said before now that some forms of spoken English facilitate greater understanding, whereas others occlude meaning. Mr Woods may well have been in a similar fix if he had been in Tyneside, or Glasgow. Gavin Andrews has a nice voice, and is no doubt a good journalist but in merely asking a question he has highlighted the problem of regional inclusivity when it comes to accents on the Beeb.

It was once the case that "RP" was synonymous with "BBC English". It promoted understanding and comprehensibility by setting the standards from which we were then all free to deviate. But that someone, asking a question of an American (who uses English as his mother-tongue), would do so in an accent that is literally incomprehensible to the interviewee, is slightly bonkers.

There needs to be a middle ground between putting regional accents to the fore and comprehensibility. Obviously I'd prefer a return to old-fashioned RP, because that's my default mode; but I accept that's not going to happen. So instead I'll put my weight behind maximising comprehensibility. I'm sure everyone has a right to their own handwriting, but when it comes to printing, some typefaces are just more legible than others; and when it comes to speaking, some accents are just more intelligible than others.

I saw this last night:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011k45f/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_Love_and_Power/

And I can recommend it to all and sundry.

If necessary, get yourself a proxy so you can watch it on BBC's iPlayer. This was the best telly I've seen in a while, even if I didn't agree with everything in it.

Sometimes the coalition can get things right.

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/07/bbc-worldwide-sale 

Not breaking up or selling off the BBC is one way of putting the coalition in my good books: not that such would worry 'em, though it might just irritate Roops and his attack dogs.

And if, as it seems, they are going to fine-tune the child allowance cap, then there will be two things on which I can agree with 'em.... and counting?

Giving Little Gideon a quick read of Stiglitz-Greenwald, Sappington-Stiglitz, and Shapiro-Stiglitz may just make me even happier.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8548707.stm

And as for why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Though this link is of course, not proven. However, birth defects 13 times higher than in Europe may have other aetiologies: it could be that these folk are all foreign.

Besides, if they didn't want us to come and save them from Saddam with our very wonderful modern unborn-deforming-weaponry, they should have said so.

Isn't it nice to be on the side of the liberators when we think of all the good we've done for the people of Iraq? Because, as we know, this wasn't about WMD but it was about regime change, and giving the folk of Iraq a better life. Well, some of them certainly have that now. Just think of the opportunities for these newborns to work in carnivals or appear in Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Now that wouldn't have happened under Saddam now, would it?

Bliar and Bush can be truly proud of themselves. And as for the rest of us, I should lead you in salutes to these two fine patriotic ex-leaders who have done so much for so many people in Iraq.

History will remember them both, and both their names will be held up as educational examples to the coming generations. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/26/bbc-protests-6music-asian-network-radio-closure

So the Tories have put pressure on the Beeb. Was this ideological or driven by 'outside forces' (ie Roops et al)?

Now I've been going on about this for some time, though the battle between Murdoch and the BBC has been ongoing for over two decades. My last four outbursts on the topic contain the gist of my arguments and opinions.

http://johnny9fingers.livejournal.com/165585.html

http://johnny9fingers.livejournal.com/165992.html

http://johnny9fingers.livejournal.com/176472.html

http://johnny9fingers.livejournal.com/179018.html

To those of you for whom this is all tl:dr, I'd advise that you don't put your head above the parapet, as sarcasm in reply often offends. Nevertheless I'll encapsulate the arguments for you.

Quality (in the sense of excellence and merit) is, to me, more important than any ideological 'correctness' whether political, or economically capitalist.

In the media war between the forces of profit (Murdoch) and the forces of the publicly financed and overseen (the Beeb), the publicly financed has triumphed in those most important factors: excellence and merit. Standards of journalism have never been better than at the Beeb. Breadth, depth, and reach have never been surpassed. In its core statement about nation reaching unto nation, and its principles of educating, informing, and entertaining, the Beeb set out a course which it has followed for many years. It is not beholden to shareholders, but rather public oversight. It also costs a damn sight less than cable.

If any of the Tories castrate the Beeb when they come to power, I will hound each and every one of those concerned to their graves. My only weapons will be invective, sarcasm, verbal spite, and the panoply of maledicta to which I have access. And I will put all my inventiveness into making the aptest and most debilitating comment.

I rather hope that those who make such decisions know just how ostracised they will be if they fuck with the BBC. And I also hope that this ostracising extends into the social sphere too. They may even be worse pariahs than bankers. Time will tell.

From it's Reithian beginnings to its present dominance of the culture of the language of Shakespeare the BBC has always had enemies.

That James Murdoch should ally himself with those, the historical enemies of the BBC, is....understandable. However the list of enemies is as long as the list of enemies of the British state, (and its allies) or perhaps now, one or two more.

It isn't a requirement to be anti-British to hate/dislike/be in competition with the BBC but it certainly helps. After all, commecial television has always had an uneasy relationship with the BBC.

However, when it comes to the dissemination of High Culture and ideas associated with such, the BBC is without equal.

For example BBC_Radio_3
Radio 3 is the world's most significant most significant commissioner of new music*.

And as for BBC_Radio_4, for most Englishfolk who listen to radio, it needs no introduction.

Apart from sponsoring and organising arguably the largest and greatest music festival in the world (The_Proms) and funding some six orchestras plus choirs, the national levy that goes to the BBC pays for a lot more than just TV without the adverts.

Y'see Murdoch is in some ways right: the BBC is a monolith, but if he's setting up NewsCorp as the alternative then he really is on a hiding to nothing. Without the BBC, stations with editorial agenda like FOX would have their say with no major dissent: few others apart from the BBC have the resources and editorial and journalistic integrity to present a story as free of bias. Most private newsgathering organisations are answerable to the whims of their owners. Because the BBC is payed for by public money, established with a Royal Charter, and subject to the scrutiny of its board of governors, Parliament, and ultimately the people, it wouldn't be allowed to get away with some of the egregious (or some would say deliberate) errors FOX's output is strewn with. Republican sex scandal Senators being labeled Dems for example; never mind the network's OxyContin-driven commentary that substitutes for journalism, unnoticed by its audience.

Yeah, criticise our health service and we'll get up in arms. Set about the beeb and....upon reflection, the consequences could be worse: folk will start looking at the alternatives, and then people like me will start taking collections and buying two or more TV licences every year. I may leave money to the BBC in my will, or try to covenant money to it in some way or other. And really, I don't care if the Murdoch organisation goes out of business, despite the TLS. In fact, that may even be a win. Newspapers have had their day, perhaps private broadcasters like FOX won't be far behind. I'm sure some will mourn their passing: thinking about it even Al Megrahi will have some mourners at his funeral, too.

*Source wikipedia, so it may not be gospel, but I'd lay odds on it being correct.