He means reality programming, quizzes and celebrity crap, which make up 90% of BBC scheduling - no exaggeration either. If the ‘masses’ are happy with all that garbage, I really give up.
The common denominator here is that they are CHEAP to make. No actors, drama script writers, photographers or specialist directors to hire.
Thank God for satellite and cable TV.
By he, I assume you don’t mean me. You’ll note none of these references in the OP.
Edit: Ah, I think you mean fluff programming?
Seeing as today is the twentieth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq , maybe we might do well to remember the storm of controversy the BBC found itself in at the time.
Before embarking on their illegal war , the Labour Govt. first went to war with the BBC over Andrew Gilligan’s reporting on how the government ‘sexed up’ the dodgy dossier and then used it as a predicate for the war , an accusation of which they were demonstrably guilty.
The behaviour of Alistair Campbell , Tony Blair and the rest of the liars led to the suicide of the esteemed scientist and biological weapons expert Dr.David Kelly.
Unabashed , the government then oversaw the stitch up job that was the Hutton Report and went on to use its findings to force the resignations of Gilligan and then DG Greg Dyke.
The war was probably the most shameful episode in recent British , but the way the government then went on to slander the BBC in revenge for its (truthful) reporting was almost as blameworthy.
Good question. I’m not really qualified to speak, as I’m not there consuming the regular BBC diet. By fluff I probably mean mass appeal stuff, and reality TV stuff.
I agree there should be some of that, definitely, but if there isn’t enough of the unique things, such as the programmers you list, or if there isn’t enough quality, such that it qualifies as worthy as an art form of its type (writing, production, acting and so on) then it seems the case for public funding diminishes.
Can someone do a comparison of other public broadcasting services (DW, CBC, ABC) with BBC?
Let’s see what someone who worked for the BBC, as a highly respected correspondent on various issues, for 35 years has to say on the matter…
I’d take his assessment over that of anybody here.
It’s interesting that he mentions using Lord Lawson for “balance” on climate change stories. It’s balancing peer reviewed science with wishful thinking. There’s no need to “balance” that.
Now discussing what you are going to do about it is a reasonable debate but that isn’t what he was doing.
If I quoted a story from the Telegraph, we all know what would be said.
Given a choice between the government’s (any government) version of events and the BBC’s reporting of it , I know which one I would lend more credence to.
I assume if you had joined the Conservative Party you might now be DG.
Alan Freeman… AKA - Fluff 
Tbf, ITV, BBC 2, C4 and C5 - those are the mainstream ‘free’ UK channels - are just as bad, if not worse.
The other BBC acronym is more interesting.
What happened when a Labour government was in charge for 12 years? Did the BBC shut up shop and go home?
How do you know this?
Scroll up to my post about the Iraq War.
Again, this is why I fear typing phrases into Google.
When I was working in a department that was promoting Scottish film and TV we had a problem with the Internet filter in that it blocked references to BBC Scotland. It was the “other” BBC usage that caused it.
The other one we had problems with was a popular BBC comedy series from the 1980s. The phrase it objected to was the name of the show: “Naked Video”.
Ah Naked Video, that was great in a shit way. The crazy lady with the mad eyes. I remember the music too. Simpler times. Now of course googling BBC can produce a whole different load of results……
DON’T search for naked video on Youtube at work……
Just flicked through it, some things just wouldn’t get made today.
Love English detectives do not care if they are from the BBC, ITV, C4 …
Like most on here I grew up with the BBC as a constant part of the media landscape. It has produced hundreds, if not thousands, of wonderful programmes; documentaries, dramas and comedies that have enriched all our lives. The standard and scope of this output is, in my opinion, second to none, not just in the UK, but globally. British people don’t realise how lucky they are to have all this at their fingertips. I can remember visiting the States in the eighties and being overjoyed to find ‘Yes, Minister’ hidden away on PBS. There was nothing even close to that standard on US TV at that time. Times have changed, but the BBC is still a major player, producing top quality prograammes from Attenborough to Happy Valley.
All that is separate from the news coverage, which has always been admired around the world. What channel did Mandela trust? Where did dissidents in the Soviet Union get their news? It was always the BBC.
Things have changed recently, and the BBC has become a political football. Stoked by Murdoch, who has long envied the BBC’s reputation and market share, the Conservatives decided that it was too left wing, and started to attack it, despite the fact that it has always been the voice of the establishment. Now they have put their own people in charge and the corporation has lurched to the right, as seen by recent events. I hope that moderation will prevail, and that we will once again see a BBC that is respected for it’s impartiality. It would be a terrible shame if it was broken up and sold off as some rabid tories and their billionaire friends would like. I don’t believe that any private company would produce that level of programming for such a sustained period of time.
Private broadcasters are hugely biased, more so than the BBC. That never seems to be mentioned.