3 ms·

I would absolutely use the "publicly funded" argument, because the public was forced to pay for BBC productions if they had a Television (a device for viewing t

I would absolutely use the "publicly funded" argument, because the public was forced to pay for BBC productions if they had a Television (a device for viewing them). When much of this content was made, there were not even VHS tapes or streaming sticks, meaning the only thing a television would have been used for was the BBC. And you can't argue that it was not compulsory - BBC ran scare campaigns for decades about their "TV Detector vans" to fine people who didn't pay. To me, the method might be different, but that doesn't change the publicly funded status. I don't care if it wasn't funded the same way as roads. It was still publicly funded, just in a different way. I believe that anything that had compulsory public money going into it should be properly archived, be it film, or software, or old documents.

edent 5y ago
> I believe that anything that had compulsory public money going into it should be properly archived, be it film, or software, or old documents. You'll be pleased to know that the archives are intact! You can even view off-air recordings at https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/bob/ https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/bob/ The article is only talking about broadcast repeats.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  The "archives" are not intact. Back in the day, it was BBC custom to re-use the tapes. As a consequence, entire series of Dr. Who have been lost.
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > The "archives" are not intact. For the purpose of this article, though, they are "intact" in the sense that the archives themselves are not being "censored", right? Only broadcast repeats from the archives (which remain untouched and, for want of a better word, intact.)
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    From now on, at least, they should be. Storage is relatively cheap and the shows can be monetized in other ways to help fund new productions. What would not be acceptable would be to delete original content that has already been created because it's unsuitable for modern sensitivities. The best approach could be to offer the adaptation and have an option to watch the potentially upsetting content. I think broadcasting content that, for instance, promotes racism, homophobia, or misogyny, violates the BBC's mandate "to act in the public interest". OTOH, pretending it never existed also goes against that mandate.
ghusto 5y ago
> I don't care if it wasn't funded the same way as roads. It was still publicly funded, just in a different way. I believe that anything that had compulsory public money going into it should be properly archived There is no compulsory public money going into the BBC, as evidenced by the fact that I was not required to pay a single penny to the BBC for the 36 years I lived in the UK. This is putting aside the argument that were it to be publicly funded, it must be properly archived. I don't know where that entitlement comes from.

edent 5y ago

> I believe that anything that had compulsory public money going into it should be properly archived, be it film, or software, or old documents. You'll be pleased to know that the archives are intact! You can even view off-air recordings at https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/bob/ https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/bob/ The article is only talking about broadcast repeats.

denton-scratch 5y ago
The "archives" are not intact. Back in the day, it was BBC custom to re-use the tapes. As a consequence, entire series of Dr. Who have been lost.
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > The "archives" are not intact. For the purpose of this article, though, they are "intact" in the sense that the archives themselves are not being "censored", right? Only broadcast repeats from the archives (which remain untouched and, for want of a better word, intact.)
- rbanffy 5y ago
  From now on, at least, they should be. Storage is relatively cheap and the shows can be monetized in other ways to help fund new productions. What would not be acceptable would be to delete original content that has already been created because it's unsuitable for modern sensitivities. The best approach could be to offer the adaptation and have an option to watch the potentially upsetting content. I think broadcasting content that, for instance, promotes racism, homophobia, or misogyny, violates the BBC's mandate "to act in the public interest". OTOH, pretending it never existed also goes against that mandate.

ghusto 5y ago

> I don't care if it wasn't funded the same way as roads. It was still publicly funded, just in a different way. I believe that anything that had compulsory public money going into it should be properly archived There is no compulsory public money going into the BBC, as evidenced by the fact that I was not required to pay a single penny to the BBC for the 36 years I lived in the UK. This is putting aside the argument that were it to be publicly funded, it must be properly archived. I don't know where that entitlement comes from.