Is the BBC and other channels WOKE.

[HairyWeeTerrier]

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.

Would you not agree that to choose a POC to play James Bond would actually encourage the idea of woke casting ? Taking woke to this level just seems so trivial to me. To most of the population the character is white. It is when ideas go too far, that there is a backlash, no matter the good intent. POC have been treated abominably over the centuries, this just does not seem the way to improve matters.

 

[wibble]

We gave up our TV licence over 2 years ago now, purley because of our angst at the BBC, how it has become, how biased it is in broadcasting and more so the horrific cover ups it has been involved in.

It was a huge decision based on the fact would we miss watching live TV. I have to say I have not missed watching live TV once. We watched a bit on Netflix, then discovered YouTube and there are some people on their who publish vlogs that are a million times better than the dross BBC churns out.

Giving up television is remarkably easy.

 

[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

 

[soph30]

Oh fgs this is where it gets silly. I doubt any of the cast were chosen for their characteristics or lack of them and they were all so perfect for their roles- there are at least two characters of colour anyway without even trying, both perfect choices!

 

[Pipsy]

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.

Disagree, box ticking for regional parts of UK too, esp accents and 'types'. If you watch older stuff, individuals were often presented as individuals. No self-consciousness from the producers either. Now they seem to actually promote stereotypes, supposedly to undermine them. I's bizarre. Most people seem to feel either offended, esp if their group is presented this way or condescended to when not, considering there's often an undertone of needing to 'educate' us. I don't watch mainstream stuff anymore either.

edit: sorry I missed the word 'casting'. I was speaking broadly re media. You were referring to roles specifically? I don't have much of an opinion, I understand why people dislike ahistorical depictions however.

 

[BubbleDuck]

i don’t think mainstream channels are “ woke” , but I think they can be very clumsy in trying to be inclusive and ending up looking like it’s a box checking exercise. in general though , I can’t see why having representation of a wide range of people is seen as a bad thing. There’s plenty of choice of channels these days to cater for everyone- if people want to watch a program that’s got a predominately white straight cis cast they can, if people want to watch something that has people from the LGBTQ+ community they can . Not everything has to be for everyone

 

[NomDeGuerre]

Would you not agree that to choose a POC to play James Bond would actually encourage the idea of woke casting ? Taking woke to this level just seems so trivial to me. To most of the population the character is white. It is when ideas go too far, that there is a backlash, no matter the good intent. POC have been treated abominably over the centuries, this just does not seem the way to improve matters.

Tbf, if you’re watching a Bond film then you need to be prepared to suspend your disbelief quite severely. It’s not like Roger Moore and Daniel Craig look very very alike, is it?

I personally like the theory that ‘James Bond’ is just a codename.

 

[vretch]

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

I think this is one of my biggest gripes about the present day “woke” culture. It’s the hiring of people based on their race or whatever just to tick the diversity box. The best person should be chosen for the job based on his or her credentials , not on their diversity factor. It is happening and its not fair.

I do believe the BBC is guilty of this type of hiring.

For example, I still cannot get over the hiring of a black actress to portray Anne Boleyn. In this case it was to tick the diversity box. No offence to the actress who portrayed her but there were many talented white actresses who at least looked like Anne Boleyn. As a Tudor buff that annoyed me. JMHO.

 

[Whatevesmate]

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

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

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[LaBlonde]

Quoting the demographics of London, when the stated the reason the BBC set up the studios in Manchester (in addition to previous establishment of S4C and BBC Scotland) and Channel 4 is moving to Leeds is to make programming less Londoncentric.
Pitching the only alternative as "white", "christian", "British" ....
That sort of thing.

Oh and well done for doing the "if you don’t bother to counter an argument" routine...
That never gets old.

there genuinely isn’t any need to be so dismissive here. the original replier responded politely and raised their own points. this is intended to be a discussion topic. you’re obviously very well read up on it - a lot of posters may not be aware of some of the sources you’re quoting and you could have replied with that, rather than implying the op was a dimwit.

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

you’re welcome! and i don’t know what any of that really has to do with my pointing out your dismissive tone in relation to that post but i actually enjoy your discursive writing style and found your earlier reply to me interesting so

as i said above, you’re obviously very well read on this subject and must have some interesting points to add. your response to me yesterday genuinely raised a lot of things i hadn’t considered. it’s a shame that you won’t let people engage with you on the topic without having to swipe back (as you’ve now also done above).

We have momentarily migrated from the Harry and Meghan thread, we are not known for our patience with others. We are polite up to a certain point, but then we revert to type and become dismissive. The fact that there are many of us, all reading from the same page makes our behaviour worse. I would love to go back on the Strictly thread and tell everyone to **** ***, but I’m going to rise above my nature, I have done so well so far. Thank you for your engagement with me, I have enjoyed it. Let’s hope the next James Bond is swoon worthy at least. And not a woman.
And you know this is said with a humorous tone ?

 

[IngressUK]

Oh, me too, this was my response to someone who asked me for evidence.

It is very much a case of this:

"I demand to see your evidence that the BBC is bias!"

"Where is your evidence to prove that it isn't?"

"Err, I don't have any, but I still demand to see your evidence - otherwise my opinion is more valid than yours."

--------

As for the topic in hand.

The BBC is bias and full of virtual signalling.

If I could watch TV without having to pay the BBC licence fee tax, I would.

I hardly watch or listen to any BBC content nowadays. I want to make up my own mind on things. Not be told what I should think by the BBC.

 

[LaBlonde]

It is indeed a complex subject. I have nothing to disagree with in your post. However, and you may think that the end justifies the means, the point of my opening this thread was what goes on at the production stage of the process. I don’t like the thought of a group of people sitting with a list of prospective candidates, with pens, scoring people off the list purely on the basis of their demographic. Because they have another list with the criteria that have to be met. In other words, box ticking. This would not matter so much if there were not competition in the programme. But let me go back to Strictly, and move away from race. I hope you will agree that in possibly every area of the media, there are very few situations now where the participants are all white. Rightly so, we are in a multi cultural society now, so a random choice is likely to be multi cultural, no box ticking required. That is honest. Perhaps that goes for sexual orientation too, so I’ll highlight only the box ticking that makes me feel that I am being manipulated to cover the BBC’s arse. Ellie Simmonds. She did very well on her own merit, she worked very hard, and was good, so actually choosing her turned out fine. But let us imagine that she had been rubbish. Would the judges have given her a very low mark so that she was in danger of being sent home in the first week ? I doubt it. Then we have Jayde, who WAS utter rubbish. The judges gave her ridiculously high marks. Once again, the programme could not be seen to be sending the big girl home. How long would the judges have continued to mark her unfairly, if the public hadn’t scuppered their plans by deciding that no matter how much she looked like them, she really was just not good enough to vote for. When she was chosen at production level, someone else was rejected.

i agree with jayde but not really with ellie.

to focus on ellie is to ignore all of the other contestants with disabilities that strictly have had over the years - a lot of whom received criticism and went home early. jonny peacock got told to work on flexing his ankles, a thing that he physically cannot do! so i don’t entirely agree that they wouldn’t give a low mark to a less able bodied contestant, it’s happened before and they weren’t always glowing about ellie either. i give them credit for that. when jonny p left he specially said “thank you for judging me as an equal” to len.

however, i do agree with you on jayde. the borderline patronising praise she received for apparently even setting a toe on the dance floor was ridiculous. in terms of her casting, she was a competitive jazz dancer in her youth and so it is likely that they were expecting her to be better than she was when she was chosen. they’ve had “bigger” contestants previously who have been good and bad and always marked fairly. it did, i agree, feel very different with her though and her behaviour afterwards where she implied people were fatphobic did her no favours.

i think you and i (and most of us here!) are agreeing with each other, albeit in circles sometimes the bottom line for me though is that, historical accuracy or vital ness to the plot aside, the best person should always be cast. i agree with you that that doesn’t always happen. but i equally feel that it does mean that some castings get immediately criticised as having nefarious motives before people have even seen the end product.

there’s a big fuss in theatreland at the moment re the stage production of a little life. people who have read the book will know that the lead character is not white. this is vital to his story and the subject of many discussions between him and other characters. the stage production has cast james norton in this role. two other cast members in the main cast of four are black (in line with the book). people on twitter are saying this is woke casting, in an attempt to keep the cast diverse, but because norton is white it seems to have opened up a whole load of discussion that i find interesting in the context of this thread. like you and others have rightly pointed out, there’s a lot of focus on casting poc when we say “woke”. but it can work all ways.

 

[thegirlscout]

Quoting the demographics of London, when the stated the reason the BBC set up the studios in Manchester (in addition to previous establishment of S4C and BBC Scotland) and Channel 4 is moving to Leeds is to make programming less Londoncentric.
Pitching the only alternative as "white", "christian", "British" ....
That sort of thing.

Oh and well done for doing the "if you don’t bother to counter an argument" routine...
That never gets old.

I was just quoting the recently released ONS statistics and said this could be a reason why TV stations are changing their output because the landscape of the country is changing. There’s no need to insult me when I was just taking part in a debate about the issue.

 

[thegirlscout]

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.

I mean the ethnic makeup of the UK has changed so much over the past few years - in London, the city associated with the country the most as the capital, only 1/3 said they were White British. The number of people in England and Wales identifying as white has fallen by around 500,000 in a decade. Less than half of the popular identify as Christians. So I guess these shows are just becoming representative of what’s happening?

 

[OwlAtTheMoon]

What concerns me about the recent use of the word 'woke' is how this powerful word has become so misappropriated from its original meaning. How can being 'woke' in its true sense be a bad thing - if it means you are anti-all forms of racial injustice and pro-equality? To say it's lost credibility is one thing, but then it's important for the media and individuals not to add to that by trivialising it further (eg using woke in the context of reality tv) or using it pejoratively in any context.
This gives some interesting background on the word's meaning. Quote: 'This framing of “woke” is bipartisan: It’s used as a shorthand for political progressiveness by the left, and as a denigration of leftist culture by the right.'

How being “woke” lost its meaning

Stay woke: How a Black activist watchword got co-opted in the culture war.

www.vox.com

 

[CarmenGhia]

"Diversity" is increasingly used as an excuse to replace older media faces with younger, prettier cheaper ones.

 

[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.