Looks like the BBC have censored the new Attenborough series

The BBC has helped (in no small part) make RA a national treasure for decades.

They have funded the vast majority of his shows including this one, about a controversial subject they’ve *voluntarily* made.
Lets not pretend that is an act of charity, they have profited from the sale of his programmes. Also RA would clearly have done the shows through a commercial channel if not through the beeb.

They’ve put it on their on demand service, where anyone can watch it at any time.
You are arguing that making it available on less media is making it more available to the public, which is clearly nonsense and spin.
 
Lets not pretend that is an act of charity, they have profited from the sale of his programmes. Also RA would clearly have done the shows through a commercial channel if not through the beeb.


You are arguing that making it available on less media is making it more available to the public, which is clearly nonsense and spin.
Of course not an act of a charity. It’s not long ago that the BBC were the only broadcaster who could spend that kind of money on natural history stuff, he couldn’t have gone elsewhere and he and the BBC have forged a great partnership for many decades, both have benefitted greatly from it over the years.

I’m not arguing anything other than that publishing a show on iplayer is not censorship, especially not when it was never produced for linear programming. Disagree with the decision if you like, but that doesn’t make it censorship. It is completely different to the Lineker situation, the BBC actually funded this programme off their own bat.
 
Last edited:
Of course not an act of a charity. It’s not long ago that the BBC were the only broadcaster who could spend that kind of money on natural history stuff, he couldn’t have gone elsewhere and he and the BBC have forged a great partnership for many decades, both have benefitted greatly from it over the years.
nonsense, there are plenty of channels that show natural history. I mean FFS. The Discovery channel has been running 25 years+, National Geographic also and then there's sky documentaries etc. Either be honest or be quiet
 
nonsense, there are plenty of channels that show natural history. I mean FFS. The Discovery channel has been running 25 years+, National Geographic also and then there's sky documentaries etc. Either be honest or be quiet
Attenborough’s been going for a lot longer than that. I’m sure you know that.
 
Attenborough’s been going for a lot longer than that. I’m sure you know that.
He has, but there are many other media for nature documentaries and have been for at least 25-30 years....and apologies for the 'be honest or be quiet' phrase it was meant slightly jokey but no offence intended.

Now back to the debate, putting it on both terrestrial TV and on iplayer means it will be watched by more people than just putting it on iplayer, yes?
 
He has, but there are many other media for nature documentaries and have been for at least 25-30 years....and apologies for the 'be honest or be quiet' phrase it was meant slightly jokey but no offence intended.

Now back to the debate, putting it on both terrestrial TV and on iplayer means it will be watched by more people than just putting it on iplayer, yes?
Ok, thanks for the apology, fully accepted.

Yes, reach would be wider on linear channels, but if that was never the intention in the first place, I still don’t see how it constitutes censorship. It’s like when they moved BBCThree to iplayer entirely, I don’t think it was censorship, an editorial decision that may have been open to debate, but censorship (at least when I read the definition) means something else.

The programme would never have existed on any BBC platform without the BBC making a conscious decision to fund it in the first place. It is very different to the Lineker debacle, though I shouldn’t be too surprised to see some media outlets draw parallels. I’m beginning to wonder if the BBC will even be on air by the end of the week! I suspect this is all just the beginning. 😁 (And then the Tories have well and truly won).
 
Last edited:
That quote has been running through my mind all week.
This has been running through my mind

1678559098933.png

Now have this government and the BBC broken the Human Rights Act by reducing Linekers freedom of Expression 'without interference by public authority'? I mean both the government and BBC are public authorities. With MPs signing letters to have him sacked and communicating indirectly and almost certainly directly with the heads of the BBC to remove him.

This could be a real shooting your own foot moment for this government it's BBC lackies and it's corruption.
 
This has been running through my mind

View attachment 54524

Now have this government and the BBC broken the Human Rights Act by reducing Linekers freedom of Expression 'without interference by public authority'? I mean both the government and BBC are public authorities. With MPs signing letters to have him sacked and communicating indirectly and almost certainly directly with the heads of the BBC to remove him.

This could be a real shooting your own foot moment for this government it's BBC lackies and it's corruption.
My memory isn't that good, to remember all of that. I'm getting on you know.
 
Back
Top