Sunday
Aug282011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Brian Cox on the BBC
Aug 28, 2011 BBC Brian Cox has been speaking at the Edinburgh Festival on the subject of the BBC. He is in favour:
Prof Cox said the BBC had put science centre stage and had been rewarded with high ratings and huge interest.
The Wonders of the Universe presenter said public service broadcasting had a "very important" role to play in changing the direction of society.
The idea of members of society being forced to pay for a BBC that views their remit as "changing the direction" taken by those same members of society is problematic, IMHO.
Reader Comments (57)
"changing the direction of society"......yes, that's rather what I'm afraid of!
You're very generous this morning, Your Grace (something to do with it being Sunday, no doubt)
I don't think "problematic" quite gets the feel, do you?
Cox is Reithian in his thinking: "educate the masses to think as we want them do" in the name of the good society. I suspect he believes in the Rousseau social contract where enlightened technocrats would guide society into 'rational' decisions.
(Lord Reith wasn't opposed to fascist sympathies as his diaries showed)
The trouble with Cox is that he is a rubbish presenter who seems to revel in personality and he oh so loves those dramatic shots of his sweaty face.
But that doesn't matter he'll have a job for life and one day will be able to write an independant report on the BBC just like Steve Jones.
Really should we bother any more calling them Doctors or Professors?
I bet Brian Cox can't believe his luck. IMHO he's an average presenter and his TV series worked because of the special effects. he's obviously no great 'public intellectual' when it comes to science and education or even the media.
Sure GCSE numbers studying science have gone up - slightly - this year but that could be a reversion to core subjects during financially hard times. It is premature and arrogant to say is due to the BBC. What was the BBC doing in all the years (more than a decade) when take-up of science subjects was low and getting lower?
We are still very poor in the take up of science subjects.
Personally I getting rather fed up of Cox and his overexposure. One reason is that he's quite dull and the other is that he doesn't have anything new to say. It's all been said before.
The BBC are all but falling over themselves to give him new vehicles. Lets hope its a passing fad.
he thinks he is David Attenborough. I knew David Attenborough. David Attenborough is a friend of mine. Cox is no Attenborough.
"The idea of members of society being forced to pay for a BBC that views their remit as "changing the direction" taken by those same members of society is problematic, IMHO."
How exceedingly polite, Bish, calling this 'problematical'!
I'd call it 'propaganda', pure and simple, and note in passing that, as always, those who are using our money to 'change the direction', i.e. our views, are not and never will be paying as much for the consequences of this change as we will.
I agree Cox is pretty dull really, he seems to have gained his pundit role merely because he fit some "exciting" demographic based on his mancunian pop star background without any consideration on whether he is actually capable of bringing anything new.
I think that explains his rather constant noisy extra musings about the role of the Beeb in indoctrination as in this occasion - it helps distract from his basic mediocrity and makes him look like some kind of intellectual deep thinker.
I remember Horizon when it was a science porgramme that taught the viewer some science.
I remember when The Royal Institution Christmas Lectures ran to six one-hour programmes and were the highlight of Christmas viewing. (In my family anyway)
I remember (slightly more recently) when the best of "pop" science programmes treated the viewer like an adult with an attention span longer than that of a fruit-fly. The final logo to appear at the end of the programme would that of the OU. That is actually still the case but the presenters (Amanda Vickery & Lucy Worsley spring to mind) have obviously been coached by the news division and spend half the programmes walking backwards or looking over their shoulders at the camera and making everything nice and jokey in case we realise that we're actually learning something.
Which would never do.
Have we really become so dumb that facts and talking heads frighten us into switching off?
Damn! Possibly even a "science programme". A "porgramme" or "poorgram" is what it has become.
[I wouldn't mind, but I proofed it twice]
You are all wrong...Fox is used because he 'might' appeal to the youf in the audience. He brings 'sex' to fysics as well. He was after all a member of a rock group. What better qualification does he need...
I tried to read his book (probably mostly written by his co-author Jeff Forshaw) - why is e=mc2 -badly written and incomprehensible - probably only published because of his name. amazingly it was shortlisted for the Royal Society best science book of the year - well they would wouldn't they being the 'establishment' and sycophants to the BBC.
another thing...
makes you realise how good sagan really was. We have to put up with poor impersonations..
Over here, they call it "informing policy."
I've just realised that the two examples I quoted (Vickery and Worsley) are more to do with history than science. Hopefully you will forgive the slight deviation but I think the same situation applies. The BBC's remit is to "educate and inform" whatever the particular area of knowledge and the dumbing down has happened across the board.
The treatment of science is perhaps worse because it matters more.
As I said before, and undoubtedly will say again, stop paying the tele tax and make them earn their keep.
I quite agree with several of the insights into Brian Cox -- a light weight with bling and nothing else.
I could never watch Prof Cox without being reminded of Paul Whitehouse's 'Brilliant' sketches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kkDrmW_oHU&feature=grec_index
@simpleseekeraftertruth - absolutely! LOL
BRILLIANT!!
Brian Cox, Tim Minchin - demographic-targeted talking heads
Here's Stewart Lee on Tim Minchin:
http://youtu.be/uBnGWgrZHgI</href>
Brian Cox is full of good ideas for making us better people (i.e. people who agree with him). Here he is in the Guardian last year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/30/10-big-questions-science-must-answer
Q: Can we make a scientific way of thinking all pervasive?
Brian Cox:
“This would be the greatest achievement for science over the coming centuries. I say this because I do not believe that we currently run our world according to evidence-based principles. If we did, we would be investing in an energy Manhattan project to quickly develop and deploy clean energy technologies...
One only has to look at the so-called controversies in areas such as climate science or the vaccination of our children to see that the rationalist project is far from triumphant at the turn of the 21st century – indeed, it is possible to argue that it is under threat. I believe that we will only be able to build a safer, fairer, more prosperous and more peaceful world when a majority of the population understand the methods of science and accept the guidance offered by an evidence-based investigation of the challenges ahead. Scientific education must therefore be the foundation upon which our future rests”.
His Brilliant Royal Television Society talk with his brilliant analysis of Durkin’s documentary (“I think it’s bollocks”) can be found here
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20101201_b2
I only watched a couple of his efforts and was turned of by his dammed moralising. He is what used to be called a 'divine'. Sorry, Bishop, but he is one of yours. I guess that is why he fits in the BBC so well.
Geoffchambers
Cox is typically just repeating what Carl Sagan said many times, especially in his book 'The Demon Haunted World.'
Cox isn't a carl sagan.
Climate change has just featured on BBC's Songs Of Praise.
I am not making this up, honestly, but a city gent with a religous bent with a bent didgeridoo, yes I-kid-ye-not a didgeridoo, was blowing a lot of hot air about the dangers of human consumption and climate disruption. He was pontificating with his didgeridoo in hand- if only we can see the light, stop denying and accept the Lord and Climate Change.
I wonder what Brian Cox would think about the connection between god and the climate. Here was a BBC programme that was putting both religion and climate change before science.
It is hard to imagine a more surreal moment in television that this. Completely bonkers, but worth watching, again and again.
"The idea of members of society being forced to pay for a BBC that views their remit as "changing the direction" taken by those same members of society is problematic, IMHO."
You're wrong on two counts here Andrew.
Firstly, nobody is forced to pay for the BBC. If you don't wish to purchase a licence, don't watch live TV. A stronger case could be made that hhe channels one has no choice but to pay for, are the commercial ones. If one buys things like washing powder, then the price includes advertising costs, which then provide an income for the (vastly inferior) commerical channels.
Secondly, not only is Brian Cox not the BBC, he is not even an official spokesman. To take his words as though they repreented the entire corporation, is extrapolating to a rather silly extent.
While it is true that the retail price of a product includes an element for advertising, the company and I have no mutual responsibility for how that advertising budget is allocated. If I dislike the fact that Toyota choose to sponsor ITV drama then I can refuse to watch the programmes that it sponsors or to buy its products.
You are correct to say that "if you don't wish to purchase a licence, don't watch live TV" but that implies that my TV watching of channels other than the BBC ought to take second place to my not wishing to buy a licence. An equally interesting argument but one without merit.
I take it you are in favour of "the idea of members of society being forced to pay for a BBC that views their remit as "changing the direction" taken by those same members".
Like the Bishop I find that problematic; to be honest I find it totalitarian and more than a little sinister. Brian Cox is one of the BBC's pet presenters and he made the statement in public at one of the major Television events of the year.
Either he cleared that speech with the BBC or he can look forward to a lean time as far as programme presenting goes. Either way the Bishop's view seems a valid one.
Mike Jackson.
Let me try again for you in small bits.
1) Nobody is forced to buy a TV licence. True of false. If true, Andrew's statement is wrong.
2) Brian Cox is not the BBC. Neither is he an official spokesman for the BBC. True or false. If true, then the other part of the statement I highlighted is wrong.
Your comment is logical doggerel in relation to my assertions.
Well, you managed one posting without being needlessly offensive. But there are enough witnesses to say I did try.
. Would you agree or disagree with that sentence -- taking it purely as written?Still, since you obviously need it in small bits, let us dissect it for you.
Nobody is forced to buy a TV licence. Agreed.
Anyone who wishes to watch TV in the UK at any time is obliged by law to buy a TV licence regardless of whether or not they ever plan to watch a BBC programme. I assume you agree with that statement.
Which holes your argument about commercial channels below the water line because nobody is allowed to watch them without buying a TV licence. I assume you don't disagree with that statement.
I have carefully read both the Bishop's original posting and my reply to you.
Nowhere does the Bishop say anything about Cox "being the BBC". Neither does he say that Cox is "speaking for" the BBC. What he does say is that Cox holds a certain view about the BBC which, if correct, makes the BBC's behaviour "problematic".
I have gone half-a-step further and suggested that it is likely (I put it no hgher than that) that his speech was submitted to the BBC which, at least, saw no reason to disagree with it.
Which is all that was said until you came along and decided this was another opportunity to have a pop at the Bishop because in your rather convoluted thought processes you identified a sentence that everybody but you and a handful of others would accept as broadly accurate if not literally so.
On the other hand if you want to be really, really pedantic:
Z
Now explain away Buerk and Sissons experience
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372559/Left-wing-shallow-oh-politically-correct--verdict-BBC-Michael-Buerk.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
And why have the BBC not reported the latest Conservative poll, the one where climate change is members' lowest priority by a country mile and Huhne is the most unpopular Minister-
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/08/tory-members-now-oppose-hispeed-rail-want-david-davis-back-at-the-top-table-and-think-cameron-was-ri.html
Nope, it's more than that. Don't have the means to watch live TV. Having the means might mean something as simple as having a computer and internet connection.
My GF for some time decided to do away with the means to watch live TV. Guess what happened? Endless threatening letters, telling her to get a licence, telling her that they had the right to enter and search her house to find out if she was a cheat. Curiously, they never turned up, just endless threatening letters. Pretty unpleasant, though. Frankly, I'm glad most things aren't funded that way.
Pretty bad failure to understand property rights or basic economics in this quote. That's shocking, but may explain your position on wind power etc.
So if someone went around stating global warming was rubbish, and then turned out to be paid by Exxon Mobil, would you be up here saying "this person is not Exxon Mobil, they are not even an official spokesperson" or would you be screaming blue murder about oil company funded deniers? Just looking out for double standards, y'know.
Cox clearly earns a good sum of money directly out of the BBC so he has a conflict of interest here.
Finally, whether he has a conflict or not, it is entirely reasonable to criticise his view individually that a public service broadcaster should not be shaping society, whoever states it - and scanning this thread, that is what pretty much everyone here has done.
Anyway, I should stop feeding the troll. Frankly, Coxgate at the Edinburgh festival turned out to be a bit disappointing. Stickers of Brian Cox everywhere sounds dull. What was that? It wasn't Coxgate?
The TVL is an abhorrent tax .
And not just a tax on the purse but on free speech as well.
It is simply dishonest to say "just do not watch live TV~" if you do not like the BBC.
Others, fox, sky, provide live TV, why would we have to fund an obvious liberal retard distinct leftwing organisation. where is the democratic justice in that?
they provide a few quality programs in tv and radio, thereby outcrowding alternative independant private media that would provide better at a fraction of the cost. And these quality programs are then frequently laced with their liberal rewtard gospel.
The BBC makes me puke.
(this is the fashinable thing nowadays this what The Guardian readers tend to write about Bush/Blair/the BNP etc: it makes them "puke" )
If I want to watch Sky I have to purchase a Sky cardI If I don't want to watch Sky I don't buy. Simple!
I want to see the introduction of a BBC card. Simple!
Thankyou fpr the correction, Spence..
You're right. A TV licence is required if you have the means of receiving live TV. That has been held by the court to include an aerial even though it was not connected and also (though the case was won on appeal) one occasion whern there was no physical possibility, because of re-building, of the aerial being connected to the set.
[And even that was overturned on the technical point that the rebuilding work had effectively created two dwellings.]
Mac
“a city gent with a religous bent... pontificating with his didgeridoo in hand” What, on the BBC? And before the 9 o’clock watershed?
Pontificating is what the Pontifex Maximus does. According to Wikipaedia, “he can be recognized by his holding a secespita or a patera”. No mention of a didgeriduda. The statue of the pontifex on Wiki has had his hands chopped off, and serves him right. May the same fate befall Brian Whatsisname.
Harold Macmillan, some time ago.
I all but stopped watching broadcast TV years ago, so I have no idea who this Cox guy is - [snip] This person is typical of the smug, superior BBC lovers who believe it is perfectly acceptable for a society to be denied the right to watch a television set unless they pay for permission to do so from their government. And to top it off he believes it is in its remit to direct the opinions of society. Anyone with a modicum of sense should find the very concept of a TV "license" utterly abhorrent and repugnant. What next? A license to read books? I do own a TV - a fairly modest 32" LG HDTV for what it's worth - and use it to watch downloaded films and documentaries via a media player. And I'm f---ed if I'm going to buy a f----ng TV license for the right to do that. And if I do fancy watching the occasional bit of broadcast TV (like during the World Cup, for example) I'll f----ng do that as well. It's my right, whether my government recognises it or not.
Admittedly, principles like that are easy when you live on a fifth floor flat and your TV can't be seen from the street. It's just a shame that the case still has to be argued in this day and age. Can you tell I'm slightly passionate about this?
Even if one only watched Sky they are still FORCED to pay the BBC tv tax!
There is no way around it...well at least there wont be just as soon as the numb nuts in power amend the BBC tv tax law to cover watching tv through the net as well!
Its only a matter of time.
Mailman
David, UK
I see you belong to that charming group of people who decide which laws they're going to obey, and which ones they're going to ignore. I take it you've no problem with people robbing you, as long as they feel passionately about that as well?
Mailman
Your point seems rather moot. You'd have to be aesthetically dead to watch TV, watch Sky, and not watch the BBC.
ZDB - quite an outpouring there. I assume you don't hold double standards here either Zed, and therefore you equally consider those who refused to pay their poll tax to be equivalent to thieving lawbreakers as well. Just checking for consistency.
Mike - I read up on this back when my GF decided to stop paying the BBC. Unlike most other laws, where you are innocent until proven guilty, it takes some considerable effort to understand the legislation and not end up guilty of not paying the tax where it is due. And it is a tax - effectively a tax on technology. Just watching iPlayer requires a TV licence (hence my reference to computers and internet connections - rules for which are not as stringent as those for "old fashioned" receiving equipment but still problematic IMHO).
The licence might have been appropriate in the 1920s but it has no place in the modern age. There are plenty of methods for controlling output (such as decoder cards) that are reliable and allow control of costs. The refusal of the British government to embrace modernity and change is an absolute disgrace.
Cox thinks "public service broadcasting [has] a "very important" role to play in changing the direction of society." Well, that's a political comment, and one can agree or disagree.
I would state what Cox says in a more factual way, that public service broadcasting has played a "very important" role in changing the direction of society. And I don't like the results.
And excellent suggestion Green Sand ! That would probably, however, put the BBC out of business, or dependent on oil money as the American PBS system is. They get so much in contributions (in exchange for 15 second messages about how great the oil companies are) that they are known as the Petroleum Broadcasting System. The BBC could become the BPBC, I guess.
Probably so, ZDB but watching BBC does little to improve that situation.
And what about "public service" broadcasts such as the weather warnings broadcasted almost continuously for the last three days regarding Hurricane Irene and what she is up to on the American east coast? Some 65 million Americans (about 1/3 of the total) were directly affected by that storm. Many lives were saved because they watched free TV to get that news. Imagine what would happen to you Brits if you had a similar storm but didn't have a TVL?
Brian Cox on what the BBC should say, and being helped along by a kindly old peer:
http://youtu.be/1mJr-NXHUbE
After the embarrassing ramble from Cox, David Attenborough announces "I'm absolutely with 'im [i.e. Cox]"
(which is a safe comment as it isn't clear what Cox was trying to say)
Zed,
Check if you need a TV Licence
Of course, if you are not part of modern society and don't have a smart phone or a computer then you wont be forced to buy a TV license.
Previous case law has shown that you do not have to actually watch any broadcast TV, just have equipment capable of receiving it.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
ZDB
I regret that once again you come across as a lovely, romantic, lady, full of nice thoughts and good intentions, straight from the heart, but not, I am afraid, thought through.
You perceive David UK to be a member of the charming group who decide which laws they’re going to obey. I take it that you were being sarcastic when you used the word charming and ask that you disregard the remainder of this message and accept my apologies if that is not the case.
Law is merely a statement of the wishes of those who have the power to enforce compliance. It does not remove the responsibility that all of us have to take into account all the consequences of our actions in response to any event Your wording implies that, in the exercise of that responsibility, obedience of the law should be of high importance because it contributes to the general good. This is, however, merely an opinion about how the various considerations that are perceived in particular circumstances are to be ranked. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances where obedience would be distinctly unimportant. It is merely one consideration out of many. Any intrinsic charm it has will have to be included in the balance.
David UK decided not to pay the license fee and to disobey the law. In so doing he will (not should) have assessed and balanced the consequences he perceived. At a guess, these will have been (1) He will be better off (2) He will not be prosecuted by the authorities. (3) He will have to live with the knowledge that he has broken the law. (4) The rest of the community will be very little disadvantaged . (5) Non payment of the license fee is an appropriate response to an unjust imposition which is a burden on society and will itself contribute to society’s well being.
What he decided was his responsibility and he will have had to take the consequences.
My own view is that you presume too much when you make a judgement about what he did. Why should you think you know his circumstances better than he did?
Some may think that this evaluation would exonerate white collar crime that harms no one in particular. But it is not a moral judgement. It is merely a statement of what actually happens.
My thought is that you, Zed, make a moral judgement without knowledge of the relevant facts. I fear that you suffer from the same hubris that afflicted Viscount Stansgate and may be dangerous in the same way. Spare us, please.
I think "Wonders of the Universe might be the worst big-budget documentary series ever created. The purpose of the series is apparently to enable Cox to junket round the world doing cool things, which are generally elaborate metaphors for things one would think could be explained much more simply.
Fantastic Brian Cox spoof on you tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDkVS-AN4NU
Thank you, Uncle.
I could not have phrased it better!
If you can access BBC iPlayer, watch Songs of Praise carefully at about the 21:20 mark, where CAFOD's Dr Mike Edwards (climate change advisor and didgeridoo player) is talking about "extreme weather events" hitting the world's most vulnerable people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006ttc5
At the same time, they show footage of extreme events, e.g., floods. However, the second clip shown, which is of a large wave impacting on a row of palm trees, is, I believe, from the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004. You can see the same footage on YouTube here, at about the 1:29 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWU58w2zCcg
The great tsunami of 2004 was a extreme event, but I think few would seriously try to link it with the weather or climate change.
"I think "Wonders of the Universe might be the worst big-budget documentary series ever created. The purpose of the series is apparently to enable Cox to junket round the world doing cool things, which are generally elaborate metaphors for things one would think could be explained much more simply"
My thoughts exactly, James. I remember 30 or 40 years ago Jacob Bronowsky (spelling?) in "The Acent of Man" managed to do the same job, much better, without special effects and jetting all over the world. He even managed to explain quantum mechanics in a way that I could understand, and inspired me to study physics. I must admit that I found "Wonders of the Universe" so annoying that I could not watch it (particularly with his preaching on "climate science").
@zeds....
1 The TV license funds the BBC.
2 To watch all other channels other than the BBC one has to buy a license.
3 Thus we are forced to fund the BBC.
Cox and the rest of the freeloaders spend their sycophantic lives representing the BBC.