ChatterBank6 mins ago
Should The Bbc Only Commission Drama Where Both Sides Of The Story Are Given Equal Weight?
Or to make matters easier, should the Beeb run everything by the Daily Mail first?
http://
Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I watched Jimmy McGovern's excellent 'Common' last night, and afterwards, did some reading about the Joint Enterprise Law for myself.
It opened my eyes, and judging by the reaction on Twitter, it's sparked numerous debates on the law.
This seems like a good thing...
But should the BBC be more balanced in it's dramatic output?
I think not. I have always assumed that the voice of drama should be the voice of the writer, not some committee trying to establish pro/con arguments.
However, I would be interested to hear alternative arguments.
http://
Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I watched Jimmy McGovern's excellent 'Common' last night, and afterwards, did some reading about the Joint Enterprise Law for myself.
It opened my eyes, and judging by the reaction on Twitter, it's sparked numerous debates on the law.
This seems like a good thing...
But should the BBC be more balanced in it's dramatic output?
I think not. I have always assumed that the voice of drama should be the voice of the writer, not some committee trying to establish pro/con arguments.
However, I would be interested to hear alternative arguments.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Franz Joseph II (i) of Austria in 1790 enacted that every play should have a Viennese ( happy ) ending so ROmeo and Juliet get up and gallop off the stage saying things like we are really dead we are just good actors....
There is nothing wrong with the JOint Enterprise principle. Who did not feel disgust when Ld Tebbitt said that everyone thought there wa sa cover-up when he was in charge and yet he had done diddly squat about it. Culpable by reason of knowing what was going on and failing to act in the public interest, and yet he still draws £500/d expenses as one of the Great and Good.
Why not have a commons programme where none of the MPs are telling the truth ? at least we could turn to each other and say - heavens it is just like PMQ on thursdays
There is nothing wrong with the JOint Enterprise principle. Who did not feel disgust when Ld Tebbitt said that everyone thought there wa sa cover-up when he was in charge and yet he had done diddly squat about it. Culpable by reason of knowing what was going on and failing to act in the public interest, and yet he still draws £500/d expenses as one of the Great and Good.
Why not have a commons programme where none of the MPs are telling the truth ? at least we could turn to each other and say - heavens it is just like PMQ on thursdays
-- answer removed --
Drama that doesn't have an opinion is usually a recipe for pap or tortuous 'but on the other hand' dialogue.
McGovern's agenda is well known as well as the passion he instils. People watch to agree or disagree Strongly.
That is what makes it good drama.
I haven't seen it. I too find him a bit 'preachy'.
I'm more interested in the Panorama documentary which I expect to be more objective.
McGovern's agenda is well known as well as the passion he instils. People watch to agree or disagree Strongly.
That is what makes it good drama.
I haven't seen it. I too find him a bit 'preachy'.
I'm more interested in the Panorama documentary which I expect to be more objective.
I watched "Common" and thoroughly enjoyed it. Though Jimmy McGovern is very adept at putting his own personal viewpoint across through his work and at the end of the film i had more sympathy for the mother of the 'driver' than i had for the mother of the murdered boy. And that can't be right, surely. Then, again, McGovern's sole purpose in writing this drama was to highlight what he sees as an injustice.
As for the actual law itself, i feel it can be misused and is a 'lazy way out' for the police who, instead of trying to nail down the actual killer, need only prove the presence of certain individuals at the scene of a murder in order to convict all, thereby 'getting their man'.
As for the actual law itself, i feel it can be misused and is a 'lazy way out' for the police who, instead of trying to nail down the actual killer, need only prove the presence of certain individuals at the scene of a murder in order to convict all, thereby 'getting their man'.
-- answer removed --
I will admit that I wasn't going to watch this - because overall, I'm not a great fan of McGovern, however, despite (and also because of) the parts where I could see that my emotions were being manipulated, I really enjoyed it...and it made me think about the law.
What I think it strange is the idea of 'balance' in drama.
Should the Daleks occasionally win?
Or perhaps every few episode of Sherlock should end with him looking to camera and muttering, "B*ggered if I know..."
What I think it strange is the idea of 'balance' in drama.
Should the Daleks occasionally win?
Or perhaps every few episode of Sherlock should end with him looking to camera and muttering, "B*ggered if I know..."
sp1814
/// Or to make matters easier, should the Beeb run everything by the Daily Mail first? ///
What has the Daily Mail got to do with it, they were merely reporting on it?
It was Andrew Allison of the pressure group Freedom Association who was complaining about the BBC's lack of impaciallity over this.
*** Today Andrew Allison, of pressure group the Freedom Association, which campaigns for greater impartiality from the BBC and against the licence fee, accused the corporation of failing 'to serve the public interest' by commissioning such a 'one-sided film'. ***
In your world are not the press allowed to support a certain argument, or is it only the Daily Mail you have a problem with?
/// Or to make matters easier, should the Beeb run everything by the Daily Mail first? ///
What has the Daily Mail got to do with it, they were merely reporting on it?
It was Andrew Allison of the pressure group Freedom Association who was complaining about the BBC's lack of impaciallity over this.
*** Today Andrew Allison, of pressure group the Freedom Association, which campaigns for greater impartiality from the BBC and against the licence fee, accused the corporation of failing 'to serve the public interest' by commissioning such a 'one-sided film'. ***
In your world are not the press allowed to support a certain argument, or is it only the Daily Mail you have a problem with?
^
I'm sure there are ABers who would make a case for Dalek superiority.
They are clearly well disciplined and hard working: no benefits scroungers on Skaro.
They wouldn't stand for any 'scrote' behaviour. All Daleks have obviously done National Service - indeed it appears to be all they do.
And above all, their Right Wing disdain for the ECHR and other lefty-liberal-right on sensibilities clearly marks them as 'doing something right'
(Was Davros a thinly disguised Mrs T?)
I'm sure there are ABers who would make a case for Dalek superiority.
They are clearly well disciplined and hard working: no benefits scroungers on Skaro.
They wouldn't stand for any 'scrote' behaviour. All Daleks have obviously done National Service - indeed it appears to be all they do.
And above all, their Right Wing disdain for the ECHR and other lefty-liberal-right on sensibilities clearly marks them as 'doing something right'
(Was Davros a thinly disguised Mrs T?)
/In your world are not the press allowed to support a certain argument, or is it only the Daily Mail you have a problem with?/
We just need to recognise that The Daily Mail and the Murdoch media have an ongoing anti-BBC agenda. Partly because they see commercial opportunities in any weakening of its Charter
They are naturally disposed to publicise and promote any utterances from groups like The Freedom Association as it is Ultra Conservative in its views
We just need to recognise that The Daily Mail and the Murdoch media have an ongoing anti-BBC agenda. Partly because they see commercial opportunities in any weakening of its Charter
They are naturally disposed to publicise and promote any utterances from groups like The Freedom Association as it is Ultra Conservative in its views
Z in the good old days Papers were allowed to be more political in outlook that the Beeb - probably because tel was looked on as a poweful medium for persuasion.
BUT at one point the SUN was advocating lower interest rates, not because it would do the economy good - it wouldnt it was the 'wrong' thing to do at the time.... but because the much indebted SUN would pay less interest charges on its own debt.....
BUT at one point the SUN was advocating lower interest rates, not because it would do the economy good - it wouldnt it was the 'wrong' thing to do at the time.... but because the much indebted SUN would pay less interest charges on its own debt.....
AOG
No, it's the Daily Mail who wrote the piece.
They then quoted Andrew Allison from the pressure group Freedom Association.
They describe a 'row', but fail to identify who is actually involved in this row.
It's almost as if the Daily Mail feels it's wrong for the BBC to air dramas which take a view different from their own, because licence fees are involved.
..which would be an odd state of affairs.
No, it's the Daily Mail who wrote the piece.
They then quoted Andrew Allison from the pressure group Freedom Association.
They describe a 'row', but fail to identify who is actually involved in this row.
It's almost as if the Daily Mail feels it's wrong for the BBC to air dramas which take a view different from their own, because licence fees are involved.
..which would be an odd state of affairs.
1 to 15 of 15
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.