Is the BBC and other channels WOKE.

[HairyWeeTerrier]

I believe that they are. It is wonderful to see that programmes are becoming inclusive. Minorities should be represented, after all, we should be all seen as equal in this world. Even the word ‘minority’ is derisive.
However, it is believed , by myself and many others, that those in the boardrooms, the programme planners , are choosing contestants because they are ticking boxes.
My stand on this is that if contestants are chosen, not on their skill, or expertise or suitability, then that is patronising and insulting both to the person and the audience.
I have commented on this on The Strictly thread, and have the feeling that vague accusations are being made that I am racist or homophobic. To deny this vehemently somehow proves that I am.
I would love to hear the views of others.

 

[Carpediem69]

Abso-bloody-lutely

Having said that I rarely watch, what I consider, mainstream channels anymore, they have lost all credibility and professionalism IMO

 

[Cassandra333]

I haven't watched the BBC in years and I've no intention of ever watching it again. This is an organisation that covered up paedophilia. This is an organisation that doesn't know what a woman is - adult human female - and has shown absolute disrespect for women by promoting trans ideology.
It also supported and encouraged the transitioning of children which has proven to be riddled with child abuse. So the BBC has been promoting child abuse which makes you wonder if they're still hiding paedophiles?
Is the BBC woke? Do bears tit in the woods?
I feel I should add that the majority of other mainstream channels are also woke.

 

[NomDeGuerre]

I do struggle to understand what people mean when they say the casting of so-and-so is 'box ticking' - a phrase exclusively used for people of colour, people with disabilities, people who are LGBT or people who might not be white British.

 

[Cassandra333]

I do struggle to understand what people mean when they say the casting of so-and-so is 'box ticking' - a phrase exclusively used for people of colour, people with disabilities, people who are LGBT or people who might not be white British.

In the wider context, for me, 'box ticking' is giving jobs to people BECAUSE of the minority they're in and not because they're the best for the job. I think it's offensive to minorities because it implies that they're not really good enough to be on a flat playing field. And I say that as someone who is disabled.

My disabilities meant my employer had to make adaptions for me but when I was promoted, I'd like to think it was on my own merit, not because I'm disabled. I should imagine other minorities feel the same way.

When it comes to the 'casting' of acting roles, it could be argued that a decent actor/actress could play a part regardless of their race etc. Just as a straight actor could play a gay person. And a gay actor can play a straight person.

But the problems come in and it becomes a 'box ticking' exercise imo when it begins to rewrite history. Anne Bolyn (Can't remember how to spell it, sorry) was not Black. On the other hand, I'd have no problems with James Bond being Black because James Bond is a FICTIONAL character.

When it comes to reality shows, there's no problem with contestants representing minorities. That's great. It's the competition side that becomes the problem because there is often a bias being pushed. That bias may be in good faith but it's still wrong. Added to which, the public will push a bias if it suits them to do so. But that's favouritism and favouritism happens in competition.

Sorry, am I waffling? What I'm trying to say is that all this 'woke' can often do more harm that good. 'Woke' critical race theory is causing racial tension. 'Trans Ideology' is dangerous for women and children. But then I'm not kind. I think 'kind' is an empty virtue signalling endeavour.

 

[Whatevesmate]

I believe that they are. It is wonderful to see that programmes are becoming inclusive. Minorities should be represented, after all, we should be all seen as equal in this world. Even the word ‘minority’ is derisive.
However, it is believed , by myself and many others, that those in the boardrooms, the programme planners , are choosing contestants because they are ticking boxes.
My stand on this is that if contestants are chosen, not on their skill, or expertise or suitability, then that is patronising and insulting both to the person and the audience.
I have commented on this on The Strictly thread, and have the feeling that vague accusations are being made that I am racist or homophobic. To deny this vehemently somehow proves that I am.
I would love to hear the views of others.

On what basis are you claiming that people aren't being chosen based on their skills, suitability or expertise? Where is your evidence for that?

 

[wibble]

I do struggle to understand what people mean when they say the casting of so-and-so is 'box ticking' - a phrase exclusively used for people of colour, people with disabilities, people who are LGBT or people who might not be white British.

Oh there are many more tick boxes than that...
And there always have been...

swearing
sexual content
violence
to some extent fridging
increasingly the bechdel test
to name but a few.

And oddly enough none of them have anything to do with your supposed "exclusive" list.
Though it is worth pointing out that there is whole other list of tick boxes that applies to the catagories on your list... as to how they can be portrayed and in what roles, who can write them, etc...

On what basis are you claiming that people aren't being chosen based on their skills, suitability or expertise? Where is your evidence for that?

She Hulk.

 

[Cassandra333]

On what basis are you claiming that people aren't being chosen based on their skills, suitability or expertise? Where is your evidence for that?

Because some of them are really bad at what they're doing? I haven't watched TV in donkey's years but I vaguely remember there were people who, working at their best, didn't compare to the most skilled.
And there's loads of evidence of people being chosen who don't have the skills, suitability or experise. Look at the early days of Pop Idol etc. People were voting for the person Simon Cowell DIDN'T want.
Competition must be fair or it's pointless.

 

[Whatevesmate]

Because some of them are really bad at what they're doing? I haven't watched TV in donkey's years but I vaguely remember there were people who, working at their best, didn't compare to the most skilled.
And there's loads of evidence of people being chosen who don't have the skills, suitability or experise. Look at the early days of Pop Idol etc. People were voting for the person Simon Cowell DIDN'T want.
Competition must be fair or it's pointless.

So your 'evidence' is your subjective opinion. Obviously you are entitled to an opinion but that doesn't constitute evidence.

 

[Cassandra333]

So your 'evidence' is your subjective opinion. Obviously you are entitled to an opinion but that doesn't constitute evidence.

LOL. I'm happy to provide 'evidence' if you want it. In order to do a decent job, it would obviously take a few days. And my opinion on this subject, comes from my academic studies. I have degrees in social research and social theory. I've been studying these subjects for over 30 years.
But you are entitled to your opinion too and you may be every bit as qualified as I am. So why don't we have a proper debate on this subject? That would be much better than sneering comments. Much peace to you.

 

[Whatevesmate]

LOL. I'm happy to provide 'evidence' if you want it. In order to do a decent job, it would obviously take a few days. And my opinion on this subject, comes from my academic studies. I have degrees in social research and social theory. I've been studying these subjects for over 30 years.
But you are entitled to your opinion too and you may be every bit as qualified as I am. So why don't we have a proper debate on this subject? That would be much better than sneering comments. Much peace to you.

My comment wasn't sneering and I apologise if it came across that way. My point is that what we like/don't like on TV is an opinion and it seems quite a leap to construe that as being based on woke ideology. I was genuinely interested if these views were based on evidence or not.

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

So your 'evidence' is your subjective opinion. Obviously you are entitled to an opinion but that doesn't constitute evidence.

Do you have counter evidence? Do you know for a fact that there are not people sitting in boardrooms looking at a list of names to choose from, going back and forward making sure that every aspect of inclusion is covered ? Or is that your subjective opinion ?

 

[Cassandra333]

My comment wasn't sneering and I apologise if it came across that way. My point is that what we like/don't like on TV is an opinion and it seems quite a leap to construe that as being based on woke ideology. I was genuinely interested if these views were based on evidence or not.

Thanks for the apology and all is good

But lets talk about what we like on TV being an opinion. It's an opinion that has been heavily influenced by what you have seen on the TV and the media. This is a subject that's much bigger than 'woke' and includes all kinds of propaganda, manipulation and often a 'steering hand' from the powers that be. By which I mean politicians, billionaires, anyone with power within the system.

We see this most clearly during wartime. Especially the World Wars. But it's ongoing all the time. Woke has just made it easier to see.

When all the media, including papers, magazines, TV companies say that Transwomen are women, that's deceptive and dangerous. It isn't possible to change your sex and that's all there is to it. But what makes it propaganda is the silencing of the opposition. Gender critics are ridiculed, abused, threatened and silenced. But the media doesn't report it. This is how media shape opinions.

Another way to see the way TV influences your opinion is to look at advertising. There's tonnes of stuff on that and it's well worth researching.
So much to talk about within this subject! When you take a step back, it's really is fascinating.

 

[Whatevesmate]

Do you have counter evidence? Do you know for a fact that there are not people sitting in boardrooms looking at a list of names to choose from, going back and forward making sure that every aspect of inclusion is covered ? Or is that your subjective opinion ?

I haven't offered an opinion. I asked for clarification about how information was being presented. Tbh I rarely watch TV but I am interested in politics.

 

[JAR21]

The BBC is definitely woke and full of box ticking and employing bloody Lineker etc. But it's not the only place that is. I've just watched Bridgerton on Netflix and it drove me mad that they've cast actors and actresses in the roles of aristocracy and upper class people who can't even pronounce words properly. Actresses saying fink and fank instead of think and thank

 

[LaBlonde]

The BBC is definitely woke and full of box ticking and employing bloody Lineker etc. But it's not the only place that is. I've just watched Bridgerton on Netflix and it drove me mad that they've cast actors and actresses in the roles of aristocracy and upper class people who can't even pronounce words properly. Actresses saying fink and fank instead of think and thank

to be fair to bridgerton, i don’t think it claims to be historically accurate. it’s a completely fabricated version of regency life, in both the books and the show. they’re all dancing to string quartet versions of ariana grande after all (not to mention walking around without chaperones if you want to get deeper into it).

my main issue with the idea of “woke” is that it indirectly invalidates any type of non-white casting. the new doctor who was immediately shouted down as woke casting with absolutely no consideration that he may genuinely have been the best person who auditioned. open casting has to work all ways in that the best person for the part gets the part. sometimes that person may not be white (obviously this is restrictions permitting if they’re playing a real person). i don’t particularly like when people are immediately discredited as being a woke casting. if the new james bond is a poc then i fully expect the same thing to happen.

 

[Whatevesmate]

Thanks for the apology and all is good

But lets talk about what we like on TV being an opinion. It's an opinion that has been heavily influenced by what you have seen on the TV and the media. This is a subject that's much bigger than 'woke' and includes all kinds of propaganda, manipulation and often a 'steering hand' from the powers that be. By which I mean politicians, billionaires, anyone with power within the system.

We see this most clearly during wartime. Especially the World Wars. But it's ongoing all the time. Woke has just made it easier to see.

When all the media, including papers, magazines, TV companies say that Transwomen are women, that's deceptive and dangerous. It isn't possible to change your sex and that's all there is to it. But what makes it propaganda is the silencing of the opposition. Gender critics are ridiculed, abused, threatened and silenced. But the media doesn't report it. This is how media shape opinions.

Another way to see the way TV influences your opinion is to look at advertising. There's tonnes of stuff on that and it's well worth researching.
So much to talk about within this subject! When you take a step back, it's really is fascinating.

I'm interested in the consequences of woke ideology which is what brought me to this thread. As you say, it is a fascinating area. I recently read this: Amazon.com Amazon product
From what you have said it sounds like a book that you would find interesting too.

 

[Cassandra333]

I'm interested in the consequences of woke ideology which is what brought me to this thread. As you say, it is a fascinating area. I recently read this: Amazon.com Amazon product
From what you have said it sounds like a book that you would find interesting too.

I love Andrew Doyle and I really do want to read this

 

[Whatevesmate]

I love Andrew Doyle and I really do want to read this

Me too. He's a brilliant thinker. Love Titania McGrath

 

[JAR21]

to be fair to bridgerton, i don’t think it claims to be historically accurate. it’s a completely fabricated version of regency life, in both the books and the show. they’re all dancing to string quartet versions of ariana grande after all (not to mention walking around without chaperones if you want to get deeper into it).

my main issue with the idea of “woke” is that it indirectly invalidates any type of non-white casting. the new doctor who was immediately shouted down as woke casting with absolutely no consideration that he may genuinely have been the best person who auditioned. open casting has to work all ways in that the best person for the part gets the part. sometimes that person may not be white (obviously this is restrictions permitting if they’re playing a real person). i don’t particularly like when people are immediately discredited as being a woke casting. if the new james bond is a poc then i fully expect the same thing to happen.

So do you think that would happen if the best person for playing Martin Luther King was white?