Category Archives: broadcasters

BBC Radio 1 should be abolished

Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 10.01.54The existence, says Dalrymple, of the British state broadcaster’s wireless station ‘Radio 1’, which excretes popular music of the worst kind,

is an example of the pervasive corporatist corruption of the British State.

Dalrymple writes:

Nobody who scans through the stations on his car radio can possibly be under the misapprehension that a taste for pop music is not adequately catered for by commercial broadcasters. There is no excuse for a State-promoted and publicly-funded pop music station.

Subsidy of what requires no subsidy

BBC Radio 1 is a means by which

public money is transferred, by royalties and other payments, into the pockets of people who are already rich, in the same way that development aid is the means by which poor people in rich countries give money to rich people in poor countries.

The only justification for a public service broadcaster

is that it broadcasts programmes that would not otherwise be produced, and that are of high artistic or intellectual worth.

But

our cultural and political élites have lost confidence in their judgment as to what is of intrinsic intellectual and artistic value. The measure of the BBC’s success is therefore the size of its audiences. The BBC becomes demotic.

The State and parastatal organisations, Dalrymple observes,

have an inherent and unstoppable tendency to swell grotesquely, especially in our corporatist society which increasingly resembles India during the Licence Raj, in which the public service did not serve and private enterprise was not enterprising.

Loathsome poll-tax-funded purveyor of pap

The idiot's lantern

Moral idiot’s lantern

The corrupt British state broadcaster

The contempt of the upper echelons of the BBC for the intelligence of the British public could not be better illustrated than by its website, writes Dalrymple.

His experience of those working at the lower levels of the organisation

is of intelligent, dedicated and often talented people frustrated in their wish to do a good job by the mandate from the top to produce prolefeed, a pabulum of sport, gossip, celebrity and trivial sensation.

Compared to the BBC’s website, the Daily Mail‘s is

like a work of the deepest and most serious scholarship.

Dalrympian understatement

Screen Shot 2015-03-04 at 23.01.00Dalrymple writes:

I do not always express myself in emollient fashion.

What might be an instance of Dalrymple expressing himself in a not necessarily emollient fashion? Well, there is his description — wholly accurate, actually — of people who work in the television industry. He is not overly fond of them, if the truth be told. He writes:

People who work for TV broadcasting companies are the most disagreeable people that I have ever encountered. I far preferred the criminals whom I encountered in my work as a prison doctor, who were more honest and upright than TV people. TV people are as lying, insincere, obsequious, unscrupulous, fickle, exploitative, shallow, cynical, untrustworthy, treacherous, dishonest, mercenary, low, and untruthful a group of people as is to be found on the face of this Earth. They make the average Western politician seem like a moral giant. By comparison with them, Mr Madoff was a model of probity and Iago was Othello’s best friend.

Broadcast drivel has the same intonation in all languages

Airport telescreens

Dalrymple watches the weather forecast for Buenos Aires, Rawalpindi, and Brisbane, and other places.

I made (involuntarily) a mental note that it was frightfully cold in Montreal, minus 17 degrees Celsius, whereas in Los Angeles it was 23 degrees Celsius.

The sound, writes Dalrymple, 'is turned on loud enough to be hard to ignore, but too soft to be intelligible. Tthe volume must have been carefully calculated by someone with this in mind). Oddly enough, the intonation always suffices to tell you that what is said is drivel, in the same way that a dog can understand what you say by the tone of your voice'

Compulsory television: the sound of airport TVs, writes Dalrymple, ‘is turned on loud enough to be hard to ignore, but too soft to be intelligible. The volume must have been carefully calculated by someone with this in mind. The intonation always suffices to tell you that what is said is drivel, in the same way that a dog can understand what you say by the tone of your voice’

 

Certain shortcomings of people who work in broadcasting

Dalrymple has not had one since 1973

The idiot’s lantern

People who work for TV broadcasting companies, writes Dalrymple, are

the most disagreeable people that I have ever encountered. I far preferred the criminals whom I encountered in my work as a prison doctor, who were more honest and upright than TV people.

TV people, he says, are

as lying, insincere, obsequious, unscrupulous, fickle, exploitative, shallow, cynical, untrustworthy, treacherous, dishonest, mercenary, low, and untruthful a group of people as is to be found on the face of this Earth.

They

make the average Western politician seem like a moral giant. By comparison with them, Mr Madoff was a model of probity and Iago was Othello’s best friend.