3 ms·

“cultural vandalism” indeed! It's ironic then that a nation that pride itself on preserving tradition should allow its national broadcaster the BBC to destroy e

“cultural vandalism” indeed! It's ironic then that a nation that pride itself on preserving tradition should allow its national broadcaster the BBC to destroy early archives in the 60s/70s (https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-a-purge-of-the-BBC-archives-in-the-late-60s https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-a-purge-of-the-BBC-archi...). "Who would want to watch a program twice?" and "Wow, isn't storage expensive?!" Orwell would have turned in his grave.

cannonpr 2y ago
The honest truth is that the Britain of today isn’t a colonial power anymore, and is rather poor by its relative standards of the past. I feel it’s more concerned with selling its past to tourists for money more than preserving it of late.
- FerretFred 2y ago
  Absolutely right!
- swores 2y ago
  Not just to tourists, unfortunately a significant part of our (British) politics is selling our past to voters, as rose-tinted "good old days" emotions at the expense of focussing on how to make the best of the current situation (which, let's face it, despite no longer being as much of a global power as during the empire days were still an extremely privileged country compared to global averages).
monooso 2y ago
Whilst I'm not in any way arguing in favour of destroying culturally significant works, you've completely mischaracterised the answer you linked to. > "Who would want to watch a program twice?" This isn't even remotely what was said. The answer makes it clear that it wasn't feasible to air some programs again, due to the fees that must be paid to actors etc., and as such: > So, if a programme could not be aired again, what was the point in keeping it? Which is a reasonable line of thinking for the British _Broadcasting_ Corporation. > "Wow, isn't storage _expensive_?!" Yes, it was. But the answer makes clear that it wasn't just an issue of storage costs; the _tape_ was extremely expensive, and could be reused. So it was. > When I worked in the tape library in the late ’60s a one hour reel of tape cost the equivalent of six weeks of my pay. Storage was expensive too. One final point I would make is that the BBC is publicly funded. It doesn't have unlimited funds, and its primary function is to create content. As the answer clearly states: > Some samples of programmes were kept as being of interest, but the BBC saw itself as a maker of programmes not a museum.

cannonpr 2y ago

The honest truth is that the Britain of today isn’t a colonial power anymore, and is rather poor by its relative standards of the past. I feel it’s more concerned with selling its past to tourists for money more than preserving it of late.

FerretFred 2y ago
Absolutely right!
swores 2y ago
Not just to tourists, unfortunately a significant part of our (British) politics is selling our past to voters, as rose-tinted "good old days" emotions at the expense of focussing on how to make the best of the current situation (which, let's face it, despite no longer being as much of a global power as during the empire days were still an extremely privileged country compared to global averages).

monooso 2y ago

Whilst I'm not in any way arguing in favour of destroying culturally significant works, you've completely mischaracterised the answer you linked to. > "Who would want to watch a program twice?" This isn't even remotely what was said. The answer makes it clear that it wasn't feasible to air some programs again, due to the fees that must be paid to actors etc., and as such: > So, if a programme could not be aired again, what was the point in keeping it? Which is a reasonable line of thinking for the British _Broadcasting_ Corporation. > "Wow, isn't storage _expensive_?!" Yes, it was. But the answer makes clear that it wasn't just an issue of storage costs; the _tape_ was extremely expensive, and could be reused. So it was. > When I worked in the tape library in the late ’60s a one hour reel of tape cost the equivalent of six weeks of my pay. Storage was expensive too. One final point I would make is that the BBC is publicly funded. It doesn't have unlimited funds, and its primary function is to create content. As the answer clearly states: > Some samples of programmes were kept as being of interest, but the BBC saw itself as a maker of programmes not a museum.