|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 31, 2022 11:23:13 GMT
I don't think that it does bother people, what bothers people is the reason why television appears to imply that it should be mandatory. What planet is that on? Because down here on earth it doesn't. What you are likely seeing is two effects: a) the we always notice the different far more than we notice the normal b) the limited number of couples a TV drama can include which will tend to be have a higher inter racial % than the current population just by including the representative number of non white people. Why should b) not also include the representative number of marriages. If the consequence of the policies at b) is to guide to a new society then b) can only be viewed as a form of propaganda that is creating a new social consensus. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 31, 2022 11:39:30 GMT
What planet is that on? Because down here on earth it doesn't. What you are likely seeing is two effects: a) the we always notice the different far more than we notice the normal b) the limited number of couples a TV drama can include which will tend to be have a higher inter racial % than the current population just by including the representative number of non white people. Why should b) not also include the representative number of marriages. If the consequence of the policies at b) is to guide to a new society then b) can only be viewed as a form of propaganda that is creating a new social consensus. Just do the maths (well sets). You might have 20 actors in a drama, now make 18% of them non white and now randomly pick couples. You'll get a higher % of inter racial couples than in society. Or try to make the correct number of depicted relationships inter racial (~10%) and then get that 18% of actors to be non white: you'll find it hard. The intelligent thing to do is just look at the characters and actions they project and accept that that's what drama is and should be (and not some manifesto for the white purists) |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 31, 2022 11:55:44 GMT
Why should b) not also include the representative number of marriages. If the consequence of the policies at b) is to guide to a new society then b) can only be viewed as a form of propaganda that is creating a new social consensus. Just do the maths (well sets). You might have 20 actors in a drama, now make 18% of them non white and now randomly pick couples. You'll get a higher % of inter racial couples than in society. Or try to make the correct number of depicted relationships inter racial (~10%) and then get that 18% of actors to be non white: you'll find it hard. The intelligent thing to do is just look at the characters and actions they project and accept that that's what drama is and should be (and not some manifesto for the white purists) Do you think that the depiction of interracial partnerships changes the dynamics of any given drama especially bearing in mind that some drama is based on that very dynamic. You could not resist the white purists comment as the whole point is to resist the directing of any society into a specific ethnic direction be that white purists or racially mixed. The strange thing is that non whites being in dramas, adverts and general broadcasting at levels much greater than 18% seems to be the norm and believe it or not it is possible to construct a drama where they might be over represented and similarly where they are under represented. The final point is that we are told that actors are selected on their talent yet in a drama 82% should be white to satisfy representation and 18% non white irrespective of the relative acting abilities. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 31, 2022 12:05:54 GMT
Just do the maths (well sets). You might have 20 actors in a drama, now make 18% of them non white and now randomly pick couples. You'll get a higher % of inter racial couples than in society. Or try to make the correct number of depicted relationships inter racial (~10%) and then get that 18% of actors to be non white: you'll find it hard. The intelligent thing to do is just look at the characters and actions they project and accept that that's what drama is and should be (and not some manifesto for the white purists) Do you think that the depiction of interracial partnerships changes the dynamics of any given drama . . .. Well maybe it does for you and like minds obsessed. But to sensible fair minded people it's different. I watched a film last night set in the 19th century it had 5 main baddies. One was black, four were white so clearly not following some obsessive compulsive agenda to keep things perfectly racially representative. Still a good watch though an somehow I think you would have not objected to that ratio. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 31, 2022 12:06:45 GMT
Oh jeez, is this Steve on his pro minority soap box again. How tediously predicable. I'm off to make a cuppa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 31, 2022 12:15:18 GMT
Do you think that the depiction of interracial partnerships changes the dynamics of any given drama . . .. Well maybe it does for you and like minds obsessed. But to sensible fair minded people it's different. I watched a film last night set in the 19th century it had 5 main baddies. One was black, four were white so clearly not following some obsessive compulsive agenda to keep things perfectly racially representative. Still a good watch though an somehow I think you would have not objected to that ratio. Blacks did exist in the 19th century, in fact there were even black outlaws and gunmen though I doubt they amounted to 25%. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 31, 2022 13:03:00 GMT
Well maybe it does for you and like minds obsessed. But to sensible fair minded people it's different. I watched a film last night set in the 19th century it had 5 main baddies. One was black, four were white so clearly not following some obsessive compulsive agenda to keep things perfectly racially representative. Still a good watch though an somehow I think you would have not objected to that ratio. Blacks did exist in the 19th century, in fact there were even black outlaws and gunmen though I doubt they amounted to 25%. Quite |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 31, 2022 13:03:41 GMT
Oh jeez, is this Steve on his pro minority soap box again. How tediously predicable. I'm off to make a cuppa. You do so hate facts and honest argument don't you |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 31, 2022 13:21:39 GMT
taking public money. Scrap the licence fee i say and follow France.....let them stand on their own two feet and sell their crap content to those who wish to subscribe.... You mean put it in the hands of those who pay the fiddler call the tune. AFAIA you would still have to have a TV licence in order to use your TV set. That happens presently anyway. The uk government calls the tune . As john pilger famously said , the bbc is the most refined propaganda service in the world for uk governments since its inception.
Then like much else , you clearly dont know yet again what you are talking about. I got rid of my tv licence earlier this year. You need a tv licence to watch live tv. You dont need a licence to wtch stuff like netflix.
Most kids dont watch any tv , never mind bbc content. They are streaming films and other content on laptops and i pads , with tvs largely gathering dust unused in rooms.
Its days are numbered .
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 31, 2022 13:58:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 31, 2022 14:03:46 GMT
heres what ofcom said recently in their 2022 review...
childrens media use and attitudes report 2022
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 31, 2022 14:06:16 GMT
. . .Most kids dont watch any tv , never mind bbc content. . . . It's an issue but it's nowhere like that bad sorry steve looks like you are doing a bit of turd polishing. Dont know if you have kids , mine are young adults now , but various reports echo what i have saw during my kids upbringing , with live tv becoming obsolete and a thing of the past.
I cant even remember the last time anyone watched live tv never mind bbc. Hence our disposal of the tv licence.
Definetly a generational issue for the bbc and licence fee , with the elderly predominantly thier current audience by and large.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 31, 2022 14:19:55 GMT
Excuse me you posted a woefully false assertion of 'Most kids dont watch any tv' and when challenged you come back with a link that says 'Children still watch live television' with no apology and you say I'm in the wrong  |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 31, 2022 15:47:59 GMT
As I said, I know lots. You say you don't object, but you don't consider it normal. 🙈 Perhaps Coventry is the hotbed of mixed race relationships. We also have a two tone museum too... If by normal you mean typical or to be expected it isn't. Yet in watching the output of the major channels and the advertising agencies it is not just normal it is prolific. That has to be a selection process and possibly there are various factors in that process but if the 'unintended' consequence of policies is to guide to a new racially mixed society then one has to consider how 'unintended' it was. If there is even the slightest intention to create a different ethnic society then that is no different to the Nazis and their Eugenics programmes and I thought that type of ethnic manipulation was something that was anathema to most people. You think that people get in a mixed race relationship because they saw it on the telly? 🤔 😂 You do have a very low opinion of people. Why don't you worry about things that DO matter? Mixed race relationships are quite normal here. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 31, 2022 15:51:46 GMT
I'm beginning to feel something suspicious about this report. It has been given in snippets to various MSM and the BBC.
We are denied access to it so can not verify any claims or defences.
The likelihood is the report is to a similar standard as the last one they did, which was on BBC and trans issues. I pointed out myself the last one was unscientific with regard to cherry picking. The BBC are probably right in their defence.
Now look at this as a dumb MSM consumer would in this god forsaken country.
They see it as follows:
1) The campaign group is the collective voice of the dissatisfied people in the nation who hold common views on the BBC being too woke or whatever.
2) The campaign group is a professional outfit who will use professional researchers who will do a professional report to a professionally acceptable standard, like any other report.
3) The report made some claims which are chime with their own feelings and experiences of woke BBC. 4) The report was proved wrong. 5) The idea of the BBC being woke did not stand up to professional scrutiny.
See how propaganda works. The idea is to crease a cognitive dissonance in the prole. It's how you do it if you want to brainwash someone. Give them a thing which is dissonant to their belief system, e.g. like to attack a Christian you may claim there is scientific evidence Jesus was gay. If a Christian believed that there would be a lot of sparks flying around their brain. This kerfuffle results in destroying their belief system.
|
|
