Actually the beeb should be fucking bombed for that shit alone. Shut it all down I say.

PS – Don’t take the bombing thing too literally and call MI5 or something.

It’s nice to hear alternatives to the white men with proverbial broomsticks up their arses and strange snooty voices (and those “effniks” who’ve made a career from apeing such people don’t count as alternatives btw).

I see no problem with any system that means I don’t have to subsidise “A series in which an atheist and a bishop come together to apply their own philosophies to the experiences of people they meet, with Jane Little chairing the discussion.”

We wants lots of airtime for [insert ethnic/religious/social/lifestyle group here]
but because of the legacy of British imperalism / Western chavanism/Capitalist Oppression/Liberal Biais/Zionists under the bed
we reserve the right to throw our toys out of the pram if the tv/radio/online people don’t discuss us in a balanced way. Balance = how wonderful and superior to everyone else we are.

we, [insert ethnic/religious/social/lifestyle group here] pay the licence fee and as such deserve to have greater representation and/or our own station because [Insert other competitor ethnic/religious/social/lifestyle group] have greater represention / have a station too and thats just not fair and no I won’t go to the naughty step.

A quote from an anonymous insider on a website called Asians In Media complains it is becoming a bland Asian Radio 1.

Adil Moyles’ rather gay joke about a part of the 5Ks seems to confirm the shift in direction.

(1) Any country where public sector spending accounts for 48% of GDP is likely to face a multi-decade period of sub-par economic growth.

(2) I can see the case for state provision of a narrow range of “public goods” (to use economist jargon) but in practice the definition about what is really a public good is very lazily drawn and special interest groups find it easy to manipulate governments into spending taxpayer funds on their particular cause.

(3) In the digital era I don’t think that mainstream broadcasting meets the definition of a public good. Therefore, I don’t see why the BBC should exist in its current form. There is absolutely zero case for public provision of the outputs provided by say Radio 1 or BBC 1.

(4) Digital technology has dramatically cut the broadcasting industry’s fixed costs and changed the business model. Therefore, you need a much smaller audience to be commercially viable than in the past. It’s hard to make a rigourous case for most of the BBC’s second-tier channels when Classic FM, Sunrise Radio and a host of other specialist private radio stations seem to do ok.

(5) Specifically, I would argue that the market for ‘Asian’ entertainment has sufficient scale to survive and thrive without public provision. Moreover, private provision creates much more scope for diversity than the BBC’s silly “lets all be Asian together” dictat (spot no comment, #43).

(6) I accept that in a very, very, very small minority of cases the private sector might not cater to the needs of a niche audience, and that a democratic polity might deem it appropriate to requisition taxpayer funds to pay for it. Gaelic speakers might conceivably fall into this category – you could argue that here you have a minority language with long historical ties to the UK that deserves to be supported because the alternative is extinction. Fair enough. But even here, I wouldn’t give a blank cheque to the public sector: you’ll get more accountability and transparency by having a reverse subsidy auction along the lines of S4C. Oh, and since I believe culture falls within the remit of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish taxpayer should foot the bill.

(7) What to do with the BBC? First, establish some link between the viewers and the cost of provision. Move to a subscription model or allow advertising. Second, auction off the various BBC assets. Sometimes, state ownership of media is creepy but usually it just leads to bloated management and zero innovation. GMG can buy the BBC News properties in order to keep leftish folks happy.

(8) Relax everyone! Ending state provision and letting the private sector create lots of niche stations is not going to end civilisation as we know it. If you want a culture to thrive, don’t hand it over to bureaucrats. If you think that state sponsorship of any particular culture leads to success, look at the sorry example of how the Church of England has fared under state patronage.

(9) Regarding ‘Asian’ broadcasting in particular, most of the various niches surely have the scale to thrive without state subsidy, but it maybe with a slightly different business model. The scale is provided by taking the various fusions of British cultures with South Asian cultures and selling the resultant mix to the massive youth audiences – in South Asia. Kind of like an audio equivalent of Katrina Kaif, but not as pretty. I’m 100% certain we’ll all still be able to listen to Bobby Friction on commercial radio, but we may have to put up with ads aimed at kids in Juhu and Jalandhar.

If you think it does then you accept the range of services and tastes a public service broadcaster caters to.

If you think it shouldn’t you disagree with the concept of public service broadcasting, and don’t bother with futile arguments about ‘agreeing’ with it but ‘disagreeing with the diversity on the tv/radio’

Namely get angry and brow beat into submission.

Whilst those tactics may have had legitimacy in the past when violence and the threat of violence were the norm they have no place in society now.

These sorts of arguments are as always about power, influence and money. If you can rant and rave enough you might achieve some quasi-legitimacy and either get funding directly or make enough of a name for yourself that politicians take your vitriolic verbosity to be indicative of widespread support within the ‘community’; so you get a job on some quango.

Regardess of what Adil Ray said he had an absolute right to say it, the fact that some sikhs were offended by it is besides the point; if they don’t like it – don’t listen to him.

I have to say its infuriating and irritating that the BBC did apparently cave in and cancel the show (again going by the article), its exactly the type of spineless mediocrity that leads to a loss of listeners.

I know a man that could put you in touch with like minded people

There’s no rush, but if you get a chance to look at what BBC Alba is doing, I’d be interested in your comments. I doubt any commercial broadcaster would see it as viable. Or is the case for supporting the indigenous culture of far flung folk more compelling?

Well misrepresenting me by posting paraphrased statements like “Spend more on the Beeb because I like to listen to Bobby”, is hardly going to facilitate warmth Cauldron.

Okay, what do you suggest so we can have a sensible, balanced and fiscally conservative approach to the matter?

Bear in mind that the recent origins of the beeb are as a mouthpiece and propaganda tool for the elite of these isles.

I would have no problem with closing down BBC AN if it were closed down with the rest of the non essential publically funded channels. But targeting a community whose face and voice were pretty much ignored by the British media for decades is not something that should be done lightly.

Let’s hear your vision for the “service” then?

Isn’t the whole point of public funds that we all benefit? I don’t like half the stuff on the beeb but i’m still paying for it..

Yes, I’d followed up that bizasia link, although not as comprehensively as you. Thanks for the extra links.

This all seems a bit odd.

The umbrella organisation, NSO, makes no mention whatsoever of the Sikh Media Monitoring Group, who, for better or worse seem to have a higher media profile than their alleged umbrella organisation.

Perhaps someone who knows more about this than I could explain exactly how the tail comes to wag the dog? And who exactly are these people?

As I said before I am equally opposed to spending money on other people’s musical preferences as I am on yours. Not because I think anyone else’s tastes are “shite” but because I believe in a limited role for the state and because I don’t think funds should go to special interest groups that shout loudest.

“Spend more on the Beeb because I like to listen to Bobby” is just a small symptom of a wider disease.

Try reading my last post before you make comments like that. If I have to pay for white shite whose only usefulness to me would be as an insomnia cure. Don’t complain when you have to pay for stuff you may not be partial too. Twat.

RE: NHS, let’s save it for another thread. Bottom line is I favour a mixture of private and public insurance systemss coupled with a predominantly private delivery mechanism, though I appreciate the difficulties of creating incentives that keep all the stakeholders (public and private) honest. As a role model, I prefer Singapore’s system to either Britain’s or America’s.

Going back to the original thread, I’m all fired up because: (1) I am morally offended by the notion of an explicitly race-based broadcasting service; (2) I think the existence of a race-based broadcasting service worsens rather than improves community relations; (3) This form of public spending goes well beyond the limits of what I think should be provided by the state and (4) I find the term ‘Asian’ – as used in discourse in the UK and in BBCAN’s moniker – to be idiotic (but that too, is probably for another thread).

I had a look at the NSO site. The only mention it appears to me to make to media is wanting to be on it! As far as I can see there is no mention of a Media Monitoring Group. But the site doesn’t seem very, err.., lively?