Is the BBC and other channels WOKE.

[wibble]

What do you mean by dimwit trope? You can have any set of beliefs you want but if you don’t bother to counter an argument and just insult people/say their idea is stupid, it’s often you that ends up looking stupid. It makes it look as if you can’t come up with a proper response so resort to mud-slinging.

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.

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

What do you mean by dimwit trope? You can have any set of beliefs you want but if you don’t bother to counter an argument and just insult people/say their idea is stupid, it’s often you that ends up looking stupid. It makes it look as if you can’t come up with a proper response so resort to mud-slinging.

Oh, how I sympathise with you, because on the Strictly thread, when I disagreed, that is exactly how I was treated. Not very nice , is it ? I think you will find that if you read through the posts, you will find that Wibble did, in fact, provide an example that shows producers’ manipulation. I include extracts from an interview of a journalist who worked at the BBC. He sums up my thoughts very well.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

I have been wondering………many years ago, it would have been nigh impossible to get a job in the newly set-up Scottish Television, unless you had one credential. The criteria for employment was not listed on paper, but it existed. Any successful applicants would have to be Roman Catholic. I wonder if one day, the board gathered around the table and decided that there had to be one Protestant. This was not a rumour, religious bigotry was alive and well. Possibly no Protestant wanted the job sitting with Roman Catholics anyway.

 

[wibble]

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.

Yes thanks for the homily.
But putting the words "dimwit" and "trope" together implies something about the trope, not the person repeating it.
Although maybe it does...
But then so does making reference to "white", "christian" and " British", which rather implies racism: wouldn't you say?
Which btw is another rather tired shorthand way of dismissing an argument.

 

[greenvelvet]

Oh, how I sympathise with you, because on the Strictly thread, when I disagreed, that is exactly how I was treated. Not very nice , is it ? I think you will find that if you read through the posts, you will find that Wibble did, in fact, provide an example that shows producers’ manipulation. I include extracts from an interview of a journalist who worked at the BBC. He sums up my thoughts very well.

The thing is, sometimes I do agree, sometimes I do think they’re being inclusive for the wrong reasons, ie to avoid criticism rather than because of an intrinsic understanding of what they’re doing and why it matters. I do have concerns about beliefs people don’t fully understand shaping policy.

But equally, I can see some holes in the journalist’s argument. He argues that having a disabled person on a panel on a radio show wouldn’t matter because you can’t see that they’re disabled. Lots of disabilities aren’t visible anyway, for one, and it’s not really about needing to see the person - it’s about hearing their experiences and taking an interest in what they bring to the table.

ETA there are a few elements to representation: 1. Casting “neutral” characters ie ones where their race doesn’t play into the plot, 2. recasting characters that have been white, able bodied, etc previously as the opposite, 3. Creating stories about minority groups and casting actors accordingly and 4. hiring minorities as themselves ie as writers, presenters and panel members. Each one is different like I don’t think you can apply a single argument to all of them and call it a day.

Yes thanks for the homily.
But putting the words "dimwit" and "trope" together implies something about the trope, not the person repeating it.
Although maybe it does...
But then so does making reference to "white", "christian" and " British", which rather implies racism: wouldn't you say?
Which btw is another rather tired shorthand way of dismissing an argument.

Manchester is only 66.7% white and Leeds is 85% white.

can you clarify how mentioning those groups implies racism? Is it really racist to state that the UK is majority white British? Saying that it would be nice to see some alternative representation doesn’t mean white British perspectives aren’t welcome.

 

[wibble]

Manchester is only 66.7% white and Leeds is 85% white.

can you clarify how mentioning those groups implies racism? Is it really racist to state that the UK is majority white British? Saying that it would be nice to see some alternative representation doesn’t mean white British perspectives aren’t welcome.

Blimey you are really doing mental gymnastics now... lol.

 

[LaBlonde]

Yes thanks for the homily.
But putting the words "dimwit" and "trope" together implies something about the trope, not the person repeating it.
Although maybe it does...
But then so does making reference to "white", "christian" and " British", which rather implies racism: wouldn't you say?
Which btw is another rather tired shorthand way of dismissing an argument.

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).

 

[greenvelvet]

Blimey you are really doing mental gymnastics now... lol.

Can you at least try to explain how it’s mental gymnastics? :/ Come on, you clearly have a strong viewpoint you care about. Try to do it justice.

 

[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 ?

 

[Ensay]

It's tricky to have a discussion about what is and isn't "woke" because there isn't one agreed definition of the word.

Some seem to think any time a minority is featured in anything (eg a TV show) it's automatically woke. Even though there are lots of minorities in this country and, therefore, it would seem logical that said minorities feature.

If gay relationships are featured in, say, a TV soap, some people will say "why do they have to have gay storylines? More of the woke agenda at play". Yet if me and my same sex partner moved in next door to someone like that, it's unlikely they'd say: "this street is becoming so woke", because it's real life - so there's clearly no perceived agenda. It's then just accepted that a minority exists nearby.

I do understand the arguments about 'positive discrimination' - eg when someone's protected characteristic plays a factor in being selected for a role. Clearly someone should get a job based solely on merit. However, I don't always have an issue with it because historically minorities have been disadvantaged and, therefore, it seems fair to level the playing field. At least in some circumstances.

I don't really see the BBC as being woke, though. I know Doctor Who and Strictly have been used as examples, but I don't personally care if Doctor Who is a woman or black because it's a fictional character who has always regenerated into different guises. I can't really take issue with fiction. With Strictly, why shouldn't there be disabled or gay contestants? They're still very much a minority in similar proportions to the real world.

Speaking as a minority, it's nice to see yourself represented on a large show when historically that representation just wasn't there. If I'd see two men dancing on TV when I was growing up, it would have helped me accept my sexuality more than I did. Of course it takes more than one appearance on a TV show, but when I was a teenager there was literally no representation - so I felt pretty much invisible.

It's a complex subject, but it's nice to discuss it civilly. We've all got voices to add to the subject and we should all listen to and respect each other. Otherwise we'll never move forward.

 

[thegirlscout]

It's tricky to have a discussion about what is and isn't "woke" because there isn't one agreed definition of the word.

Some seem to think any time a minority is featured in anything (eg a TV show) it's automatically woke. Even though there are lots of minorities in this country and, therefore, it would seem logical that said minorities feature.

If gay relationships are featured in, say, a TV soap, some people will say "why do they have to have gay storylines? More of the woke agenda at play". Yet if me and my same sex partner moved in next door to someone like that, it's unlikely they'd say: "this street is becoming so woke", because it's real life - so there's clearly no perceived agenda. It's then just accepted that a minority exists nearby.

I do understand the arguments about 'positive discrimination' - eg when someone's protected characteristic plays a factor in being selected for a role. Clearly someone should get a job based solely on merit. However, I don't always have an issue with it because historically minorities have been disadvantaged and, therefore, it seems fair to level the playing field. At least in some circumstances.

I don't really see the BBC as being woke, though. I know Doctor Who and Strictly have been used as examples, but I don't personally care if Doctor Who is a woman or black because it's a fictional character who has always regenerated into different guises. I can't really take issue with fiction. With Strictly, why shouldn't there be disabled or gay contestants? They're still very much a minority in similar proportions to the real world.

Speaking as a minority, it's nice to see yourself represented on a large show when historically that representation just wasn't there. If I'd see two men dancing on TV when I was growing up, it would have helped me accept my sexuality more than I did. Of course it takes more than one appearance on a TV show, but when I was a teenager there was literally no representation - so I felt pretty much invisible.

It's a complex subject, but it's nice to discuss it civilly. We've all got voices to add to the subject and we should all listen to and respect each other. Otherwise we'll never move forward.

Woke comes from AAVE and originally meant someone who was aware of racial prejudice and discrimination, but it seems to be used more often as an insult now against identity politics and social justice etc. I do think part of the issues around ‘woke’ is a push back from things being performative.

 

[Ensay]

Woke comes from AAVE and originally meant someone who was aware of racial prejudice and discrimination, but it seems to be used more often as an insult now against identity politics and social justice etc. I do think part of the issues around ‘woke’ is a push back from things being performative.

Ah yeah, I was recently reading up on AAVE (African-American Vernacular English to those who aren't aware) and was surprised at some of the words on there, which I had no idea were AAVE.

I remember the "stay woke" phrase was probably the first time I heard it. Now, as you say, it's mostly used in a derogatory fashion - especially in the overused (and, in my opinion, silly) quote: "Go woke, go broke!"

 

[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.

 

[soph30]

The thing is is that if you pick one thing to focus on it disadvantages another. For positive discrimination if you picked a middle class POC woman over a working class white man you’re lacking working class voices, and vice versa. People aren’t defined by one box anyway, they have many facets- even a gay POC (not saying EITHER of those things are bad, they’re just positive discrimination characteristics) is talking representation away from say a disabled person. Can’t we just make good content with good actors without all of this?

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

Ah yeah, I was recently reading up on AAVE (African-American Vernacular English to those who aren't aware) and was surprised at some of the words on there, which I had no idea were AAVE.

I remember the "stay woke" phrase was probably the first time I heard it. Now, as you say, it's mostly used in a derogatory fashion - especially in the overused (and, in my opinion, silly) quote: "Go woke, go broke!"

Yes, when I complain about ‘woke’ , I have to admit, it is rarely, I’d ever about colour. It is more about being ‘inclusive at all costs’. I know it was originally about racial discrimination, and surely no-one could find fault with that.

 

[Ensay]

The thing is is that if you pick one thing to focus on it disadvantages another. For positive discrimination if you picked a middle class POC woman over a working class white man you’re lacking working class voices, and vice versa. People aren’t defined by one box anyway, they have many facets- even a gay POC (not saying EITHER of those things are bad, they’re just positive discrimination characteristics) is talking representation away from say a disabled person. Can’t we just make good content with good actors without all of this?

I think - on the whole - we do make good content with good actors, though. And that's with the so-called woke casting or representation.

For example, I'm enjoying Strictly this year as much as I have any other year - even back in the days when there were no same sex couples or disabled contestants. I don't think including those makes it any worse, just different. Plus some people who were initially opposed to same sex couples have changed their minds now they've actually appeared in the show. Often it's just about giving things a try. No harm done after all.

I appreciate it's all down to personal opinion, though.

 

[IngressUK]

It's tricky to have a discussion about what is and isn't "woke" because there isn't one agreed definition of the word.

A very good example of woke is on the BBC most days at present - Gary Lineker.

He is supposed to be out in Qatar providing commentary for the World Cup. Instead we are bored to tears with his endless monologues on every woke subject going (climate change, homophobia in a Islamic country, etc), rather than telling us the goings on with the World Cup.

I would be very surprised if he wasn't hemorrhaging viewership for the BBC coverage.

He clearly isn't fit for purpose hosting the BBC's football coverage. I'm sure there are plenty out there that would love to do the job - without the endless virtue signalling that comes out of his gob.

What Gary fails to notice is that the UK is becoming ever flooded with people from countries where he seems to detest their religious beliefs. What happens in the future when there are enough people of the same mindset in the UK, for things like gay, trans, non binary and women's rights to be thrown on the bonfire?

What will he do then?

 

[CarmenGhia]

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