So you have worked hard all your life, endured the hard times, maybe did your bit for the nation during its times of need, worn the uniform and stood up fight for the country. However all of that means jack to the new age, Starbuck drinking, anti US, anti Israel, bleating types at El Beeb. Indeed the BBC style and fluff over serving the nation has now even reached BBC Radio Solent...
If your some radical muslim, fine air time for you matey, hate the nation then fine come on down, but if your old well I am sorry but the state broadcaster thinks that you dont fit the profile. Just not "yoof" enough.
The following is from The Telegraph, link and reposted below:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1VLUPDN5A1MNPQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/15/nold15.xml
The BBC was accused of ageism yesterday after a leaked memo revealed that phone-in presenters on a local radio station have been barred from allowing callers who sound old on air.
Mia Costello, managing editor of BBC Radio Solent, told her broadcasters: "I don't want to hear really elderly voices."
She instructed presenters to appeal to an imaginary couple she called "Dave and Sue", who would typically be aged between 45 and 64. "Only do caller round-ups about people in this age range," she said.
Her memo was leaked after she axed several of her older broadcasters, including the BBC's disability affairs correspondent Peter White, who had a Saturday breakfast show on the station until last week. Other presenters to go included Pippa Greenwood, the gardening expert.Mr White, 59, one of the corporation's most experienced broadcasters, condemned the policy. He started his BBC career on Radio Solent, which broadcasts to a large area of central southern England, from studios in Southampton in 1971.
Like other BBC local radio stations, many of Solent's regular listeners are aged in their sixties and above.
Mr White, who is a presenter on the Radio 4 You and Yours programme as well as a commentator on disability matters for BBC television and radio, described the memo as "condescending and contemptuous of older listeners who are as entitled to contribute to programmes as any other age group."
He questioned whether it was in the remit of the BBC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, to "disenfranchise a section of listeners who contribute to that funding as licence payers".
"I am disgusted by this," he said. "It is ageism, and one wonders who is leaning on the managing editor from a more senior level for her to write such a memo."
In it, Ms Costello said "only talk about things that are positive and appealing to people in the 45 to 64 age group". She said listeners were deserting Radio Solent for "more upbeat sounding stations".
She said broadcasters needed to "nurture" younger people and added: "Whatever your view of this policy, this is what the business needs, so please make sure you're doing the right thing." Mr White, who is blind, has presented In Touch, the Radio 4 programme for the visually impaired, since 1974. He was given one week's notice that his Radio Solent programme was being scrapped. Other presenters to go include a jazz show host, Chris Walker, and a veteran sailing correspondent, Dennis Skillicorn.
Mr White, who lives in Winchester, said he believed station bosses were "rattled" by declining audience figures.
Industry figures show that Solent has lost a quarter of its audience share in the last year.
A BBC spokesman said: "We do value our older listeners and it doesn't matter if you're 45 or 105." - Although they would rather you just pay your annual fee and not bother them if you would be so kind. Maybe the problem with the falling figures have more to do with the BBC not focusing on existing markets and chasing some pipe dream "yoof" market instead and of course employing tosspots like Ms Costello will not endear the station to its more mature listeners.
Mia Costello
BBC Radio Solent
3 people have spoken:
Anti -US? Anti-Israel???? Get your sources right. The BBC is 90% Jew! Their reportage is fairly balanced and they are accountable to the British public. Just because they report on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict it doesn't mean they're "El Beeb". Otherwise, stop watching it and watch Murdoch's channels instead, those will give you a 'balanced' view!
Ah yes the ol Anony mouse comments, anyway advise you check out biased BBC site.
The ambiguous victory of the democrats
by Olavo de Carvalho
The main result of the legislative elections is the consensus, between the republicans, that the party should abandon bushism and come back to good old conservative line of Goldwater and Reagan, that Bush, for moments, pretended to represent.
In 1975, the American soldiers withdrew of the Vietnam, leaving the free field for the communists, that then promoted the slaughter of 3 millions of civil Vietnamese and Cambodian, the fetidest episode of genocide of the second half of the century XX, exceeding in more from three times the total of dead persons of the war. The result was more than foreseeable, but the loving pacifists that made an effort turn it reality were never charged in the big media by the immeasurable crime that helped to practice. Some, as Noam Chomsky, still did the possible to hide it, and by that are worthy until today like examples of "intellectual uprightness".
Another similar moment is announced for soon in Iraq, by hands of the radical leftists of the Democrat Party, drunken by the easy victory in the Chamber and in the Senate, if are going to lead for the pacifist enthusiasm of John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and others that such.
It's difficult that that arrive it happen, therefore, when had the chance of cause to the practical one the proposal of immediate retreat that advocated of the mouth for outside, the democrats recoiled more than fast. They know perfect that the Iran, at present already the most greatest supplier of recruits for the Iraqi terrorism, is promptly for occupy the territory of the neighboring country or at least for carry out there a slaughter without precedents so soon see the American soldiers gone away. And a thing is speak bad of the government, another one is going sharing of the responsibilities of government. In the time in that the democrats were barely opposition, information as that helped them to squeeze Bush in the wall, obliging him it choose between the risk of ignore the threat and the of take alone an unpopular decision. Now, who is in the wall are they.
That's just one of the motives by that, in the most conservative circles, almost nobody is whining a lot the republican defeat.
By their turn, anti-Americans worldwide are commemorating the double democrat victory in the U.S.A. as went the beginning of the end of the "religious right-wing", if not of the "abominable American Empire" entire.
But, if it is truth that American people is even tired of the war in the Iraq, never the international affairs, alone, decided an election in the U.S.A. Nobody doubts of that the Republican Party paid for the sins of George W. Bush, but the national rejection to the president has very less to do with the war than with the attitudes of him regarding public expense, immigration and electoral legislation – and, in those three areas, he did it not against the democrats, and yes with their enthusiastic support. Of them and of that ones called "RINOS" (Republicans In Name Only), as John McCain and Lincoln Chafee.
The most notorious example was the immigration law. While the entire country claimed for drastic measures against the illegal immigration, the president plotted with the rinos and the democrats a ridiculous plan that not alone amnestied the invaders but gave them more rights than the legal immigrants never had. The proposal awoke so much revolt that the conservative republicans in the Chamber of the Representatives frustrated the plan, working against their own president and suppressing of the law against the illegal immigration the device of amnesty.
That was in December. Then already there was conservatives openly calling Bush "TREACHEROUS".
Bush complicated very his own situation when gave support to a new electoral legislation that limited severely the action of the NGOs not-partisan. Now, those NGOs as by example to National Rifle Association, to American Family Foundation and especially the think tanks like to Heritage Foundation or to Claremont Foundation, the main force of the American conservative movement. It is clear that the democrats, that never obtained to mount a think tank that functioned, worshipped to new rule and the conservatives saw in him an explicit treason of Bush to the cause that professed defend.
More motive for revolt the president gave when violated at the same time two sacred laws of the conservatism, spending a mint of the government for increase the state-owned interference in the childlike education, with the help, obviously, of the democrats. The repugnance of the conservatives to the excess in the public expense is traditional, but his resistance to the state-owned education, that barely be moderated, if transformed in ostensible hatefulness when became clear that the American schools were becoming centers of doutrination, left-wing oriented... by the UN.
The worst thing of everything was to sudden revelation of flat secret one of the Council on Foreign Relations in order to dissolve the borders between the U.S.A., Canada and Mexico, practically eliminating the American nation as independent political unit. The idea already was old, but when a citizen appealed to the FIA (Freedom of Information Act), obliging the government to divulge the documents about the matter, that's was uncovered Bush already was formally committed with the governments of Canada and of the Mexico it carry out the plan. The Republican Party, where do there is so many members of the CFR when in the Democrat, did not be able to neither approve an about those neither break openly with the president. Confused and undecided, the Party opted for do itself of dead person, what was the even though ask to the voters that buried it.
But it's clear that neither all to fair irritation of the conservatives against Bush would be able to transform-them in left-wingers. What they did was the more intelligent thing to do: chosing the more conservative between the candidates democrats, and voted in them.
(ER: To even to leader of the tropa-de-choque Nancy Pelosi alone obtained itself reelect when silenced the mouth about 'impeachment' and sold to new image of 'moderated' and 'pragmatic'. All the Party Democrat gone to the center, abandoning the left-wing talk. Neither red republican, neither blue democrat. It understood now because the media recognizes that that was the history voting of the voters 'purple'?)
In this way, the success of the Party Democrat was not neither a victory of the left one neither a defeat of the conservatism. Was a defeat of a ambiguous president and of his "rinos" allied.
Post a Comment