There is nothing "unofficial" about any of the counting reported on election night. There just isn't. It's government officials reporting the count as it progresses, and that's picked up by media organisations.
But (and I speak as an ignorant outsider), surely the "calling" of states by the media organisations is not official? Indeed, there were states that CNN called long before the BBC, which wanted a more certain result.
I agree that the calling is not official. It is however based on the official figures and a considerable amount of data analysis. All because people want the results quickly. They want to go to bed knowing the result.
I listen to a podcast called Solvable. I'm somewhat behind and listening to episodes from July that were about elections in general and the upcoming US Presidential election in particular.
It is truly eerie to be listening to just how much of what happened in November was being predicted in July. Among other things, the episode I heard this morning, "Election Security is (mostly) Solvable" discusses how the system of mail-in voting could lead to demographic differences between the votes counted on the night and the votes counted afterwards, leading to claims from one party or another that the 'true' results were being altered later.
And the episode also discusses how the demand for quick results hampers the kind of auditing you'd want to do if you were being rigorous. But can you imagine what would happen if no results were being provided on election night? The general public would go apeshit.
All of the calls made by media are based on an analysis of the votes from each district (or even each polling booth, though I don't know in the USA specifically how detailed the information they have is - plus parts of the USA keep cutting how many polling booths a district even has) and comparing those votes to past elections. They know whether the results from a district are stronger for Republicans or Democrats than last time, and combining that with the historical record enables them to make fairly educated estimates as to the final outcome this time around.
Certainly, the particular network's election coverage I was intermittently watching would regularly bring up a county and compare how Biden's percentage of votes in the county was comparing to Clinton's percentage of votes in the same county. The point was to tell you that Biden was fairly consistently doing better than Clinton had done, and by how much. Even if Biden was losing a particular county, the fact that he was losing it by less than Clinton had done was itself an indication that Biden was doing well.
That was missing from the Guardian one, it showed total votes, states called and percentages counted (by state and county) but with very little context
That was missing from the Guardian one, it showed total votes, states called and percentages counted (by state and county) but with very little context
I think media varies considerably as to how much of that they show and how much is behind the scenes. The Guardian not being American, it's probably not surprising they didn't show as much detail.
Many of the Australian TV networks were picking up a feed from an American counterpart. IIRC I was effectively watching the (American) ABC.
I agree that the calling is not official. It is however based on the official figures and a considerable amount of data analysis. All because people want the results quickly. They want to go to bed knowing the result.
There was of course the famous "Chicago Tribune" headline of 1948 which, in its rush to publish, proclaimed Dewey the winner based on early results: https://tinyurl.com/yxffxmzz
I agree that the calling is not official. It is however based on the official figures and a considerable amount of data analysis. All because people want the results quickly. They want to go to bed knowing the result.
There was of course the famous "Chicago Tribune" headline of 1948 which, in its rush to publish, proclaimed Dewey the winner based on early results: https://tinyurl.com/yxffxmzz
If you read the wiki article that image comes from, you might see that the circumstances that led to the bad prediction are not those of today.
I agree that the calling is not official. It is however based on the official figures and a considerable amount of data analysis. All because people want the results quickly. They want to go to bed knowing the result.
More relevantly, news organizations exist to report information, not conceal it. If they have sufficient partial election returns (what counts as "sufficient" depends on the margin) to project the winner of a state they'll report it. If they've predicted enough states that they know who the next President of the United States is going to be, that's something they're going to share, not keep to themselves. Old news is no news.
I agree that the calling is not official. It is however based on the official figures and a considerable amount of data analysis. All because people want the results quickly. They want to go to bed knowing the result.
There was of course the famous "Chicago Tribune" headline of 1948 which, in its rush to publish, proclaimed Dewey the winner based on early results: https://tinyurl.com/yxffxmzz
If you read the wiki article that image comes from, you might see that the circumstances that led to the bad prediction are not those of today.
The reference to fake news in the OP was meant to be a humorous allusion to Trump's own misuse of this phrase. I was surprised how seriously it was taken, and must admit to being slightly surprised by how seriously this thread has been taken. It was intended somewhat surrealistically
But if I were a betting person, I do think someone will have to forcibly escort him from the people's house.
My opinion is that your bet is pandemic induced fear.
I wonder: what would you count as evidence that Trump won't leave the White House, short of him barricading the doors and windows?
I'd count the following as evidence:
1. If he says he won't leave;
2. If he doesn't leave by the date that he is legally obliged to leave?
3. If, following an official result, he refuses to comply with legal obligations in respect of the handover.
The reason that I've singled out the BBC is that they are the largest broadcaster in the world
And? If they don't suit your personal preferences for news-gathering don't watch them.
My issue is that there is a legal requirement that in order to watch live TV I must pay a licence fee. 100% of that fee goes to the BBC. It seems to me that an organisation that is entitled to public funds should not advocate its own ideology.
I wonder: what would you count as evidence that Trump won't leave the White House, short of him barricading the doors and windows?
I'd count the following as evidence:
1. If he says he won't leave;
So refusing to say he will leave isn’t good enough, then?
. . .3. If, following an official result, he refuses to comply with legal obligations in respect of the handover.
Why do you keep talking about the official result as though it hasn’t happened yet? True, the Electoral College hasn’t voted yet, and true, Congress has not yet met in joint session to count the electors’ votes. But never in the past has a president waited for those things to happen to begin the transition. And most states—including, I think, all states where Trump was challenging the results—have now certified the election results, making them official.
The reference to fake news in the OP was meant to be a humorous allusion to Trump's own misuse of this phrase. I was surprised how seriously it was taken, and must admit to being slightly surprised by how seriously this thread has been taken. It was intended somewhat surrealistically
But if I were a betting person, I do think someone will have to forcibly escort him from the people's house.
My opinion is that your bet is pandemic induced fear.
My opinion is that his bet is based on paying attention and expecting Trump to act like Trump. Meanwhile, I think your optimism—which I do hope prove well-founded—is based on what you’d like to be and what you’d like to think rather than what is.
And if your optimism is well-founded and Trump does leave the White House as scheduled, I have no doubt at all that his decision will have nothing to do with his concern for democracy and everything to do with what he thinks is in his own best interests.
I wonder: what would you count as evidence that Trump won't leave the White House, short of him barricading the doors and windows?
I'd count the following as evidence:
1. If he says he won't leave;
2. If he doesn't leave by the date that he is legally obliged to leave?
3. If, following an official result, he refuses to comply with legal obligations in respect of the handover.
The “evidence” suggested in the second and third points couldn’t exist before events which had yet to occur at the time of questioning.
And an attempt to get “evidence” of the first kind would involve asking him - which is exactly what you’re criticizing them for doing.
One could argue that it’s stupid to take anything Trump says as reliable evidence of his intentions. But it’s ridiculous to get worked up over a news organization asking him whether he’ll acquiesce in the handover of power after an election, when he continues to struggle to avoid doing so.
While I do think that the media is justified in wondering about Trump's willingness to leave office as required, I also think that such concerns will likely soon be overshadowed by those of a rather more drastic nature.
Like, for example, Trump's Likud allies possibly assassinating Iranian scientists with the intention of tripping up any efforts by Biden to re-enter the muclear agreement.
My issue is that there is a legal requirement that in order to watch live TV I must pay a licence fee. 100% of that fee goes to the BBC. It seems to me that an organisation that is entitled to public funds should not advocate its own ideology.
Whose ideology should it advocate? And if it's advocating someone else's ideology, doesn't that make it their own? I'm not sure the kind "view from nowhere" journalism is either desirable or achievable.
For example, here's a story from the top of today's BBC website.
Denmark murder: Brothers jailed over Bornholm island case
A Danish court has jailed two brothers for 14 years for murdering a friend on the holiday island of Bornholm last summer.
The killing of Phillip Mbuji Johansen, who had a Danish father and Tanzanian mother, had stirred fears of racism.
However, no charges of hate crime were brought, even through prosecutors said they could not rule it out.
Magnus and Mads Moeller were found to have inflicted a prolonged and brutal attack on their victim.
They were found to have inflicted 39 separate wounds on their 28-year-old victim on 23 June.
Johansen's legs were broken and he suffered burns, stab wounds and brain damage in a sustained bout of violence that lasted at least 15 to 20 minutes, the court ruled. The brothers had beaten him with a wooden pole and a bottle, stabbed him with a knife and pressed a knee against his neck.
The forensic pathologist said she had never seen such severe injuries.
So there's a lot of ideology involved there. For example, the article's author seems to be anti-murder. If you read past the bit I've quoted the author also seems to be anti-racist (and anti-racist-murders). There's also the ideological assumption that a forensic pathologist is qualified to comment on injuries stustained. Those are all ideological positions, even if they're ones most of the BBC's audience would agree with. What you seem to be objecting to is that the BBC isn't advocating your ideology.
I think Trump will leave on time and then whine about it afterwards. He may carry out some small and petty acts of vandalism while leaving but I think he's far too much of a coward to provoke a potentially violent confrontation where he might get accidentally defenestrated.
"Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
I wonder: what would you count as evidence that Trump won't leave the White House, short of him barricading the doors and windows?
I'd count the following as evidence:
1. If he says he won't leave;
2. If he doesn't leave by the date that he is legally obliged to leave?
3. If, following an official result, he refuses to comply with legal obligations in respect of the handover.
Apparently everything that Trump has been saying for months and months and months before the election doesn't count as evidence that leads to legitimate questions about future conduct?
I wonder: what would you count as evidence that Trump won't leave the White House, short of him barricading the doors and windows?
I'd count the following as evidence:
1. If he says he won't leave;
2. If he doesn't leave by the date that he is legally obliged to leave?
3. If, following an official result, he refuses to comply with legal obligations in respect of the handover.
Apparently everything that Trump has been saying for months and months and months before the election doesn't count as evidence that leads to legitimate questions about future conduct?
Only if you believe that the words of an idiot are a likely predictor of his future actions. If Gerald Ford had said the same things that Trump is saying that may have been good evidence in his case.
I wonder: what would you count as evidence that Trump won't leave the White House, short of him barricading the doors and windows?
I'd count the following as evidence:
1. If he says he won't leave;
2. If he doesn't leave by the date that he is legally obliged to leave?
3. If, following an official result, he refuses to comply with legal obligations in respect of the handover.
Apparently everything that Trump has been saying for months and months and months before the election doesn't count as evidence that leads to legitimate questions about future conduct?
Only if you believe that the words of an idiot are a likely predictor of his future actions. If Gerald Ford had said the same things that Trump is saying that may have been good evidence in his case.
I would argue that an idiot's future actions are precisely the one thing that an idiot's words are a good predictor of. Being in control of his own body and all.
"Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
PG beat me to it. National Review has many such articles. They're very conservative and very Republican. They also think he's soiling the reputation of the Republican party.
You hardly know me and yet you say my bet is pandemic induced fear? You hardly know me. Yes, I am concerned about the pandemic, but that is separate from the question of whether Trump will voluntarily leave the White House on 20 January. There is ample evidence that proves what Trump says and does are entirely different. Take, for instance, the recent suits in the swing states. When the state certifies the election results, they become official. And yet he refuses to accept their certification. The vote is then official. Trump is challenging the certification in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
The next step in the process is when the electors meet at the individual state capitals and formally cast their vote. Look for Mr. Trump to challenge the validity of that vote.
Then the official votes go to Congress for final review and acceptance. What will Trump do? He will again sue to challenge that action. (The man has long intimidated people by suing them). Even if the courts throw out all the suits there is a strong chance he will refuse to accept that reality. He is a megalomaniac
You wrote:
3. If, following an official result, he refuses to comply with legal obligations in respect of the handover.
At what point are you willing to throw in the towel?
BTW. Attorney General Barr has now said after his departmental review of the vote, there is no evidence of fraud in the tabulations of the vote. In my High School debate team, if you can get the other side to concede your point, you have won,
Why do you keep talking about the official result as though it hasn’t happened yet? True, the Electoral College hasn’t voted yet, and true, Congress has not yet met in joint session to count the electors’ votes. But never in the past has a president waited for those things to happen to begin the transition. And most states—including, I think, all states where Trump was challenging the results—have now certified the election results, making them official.
I am far from sure quite what people mean when they use "official" in this context. I'd prefer to say that when the formal steps have been completed, we'll know with certainty who will be the US President for the next 4 years. None of this excuses Trump's stupidity.
I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that Makepeace's basic quarrel is not so much with BBC reporting as with the licence fee.
The causal factor in these cases is often hard to determine. They seem to be angry about the licence fee because they think the reporting is unfair and they're angry about reporting they don't like because they have to pay for it. It's circular and self-reinforcing.
When the BBC becomes just a free news channel, I'll pay my way as I do with Wikipedia. As they ask. And sometimes here! Might one ask here what SoF's current costs / shipmates is?
PG beat me to it. National Review has many such articles. They're very conservative and very Republican. They also think he's soiling the reputation of the Republican party.
Is he though? What Trump has stood for and what he has done, is well within the confines of the party in general. I'd argue that his behaviour has gained supporters as well as lost them. People who voted for Obama then voted for Trump! His behaviour likely contributed to the surge in Democratic voters, but ISTM George Floyd and BLM were greater catalysts.
And despite him being lazy, racist, neo-banana republic dictator who couldn't string together a coherent concept and acted like a butt-hurt preteen on twitter; nearly half the country voted for him.
Did the National Review complain about his whinging about fraud when he won?
If anything, Trump may have given a new lease to the GOP. Any candidate who can act like an adult can now get away with more openly saying horrible things.
Only if you believe that the words of an idiot are a likely predictor of his future actions. If Gerald Ford had said the same things that Trump is saying that may have been good evidence in his case.
The thing is, Trump has actually been quite consistent about doing things that he has said that he will do. I think those things range from stupid to abhorrent, but there's a long list of things that he has said that would have been unthinkable from a "normal" president that he has gone on to do. So when he talks about how he might not leave, and talks about how the result is fake, and generally refuses to follow the civilized precedent established by every single president in living memory, you have to at least wonder whether he will follow through with this nonsense.
You seem to be doing an awful lot of special pleading for Mr. Trump here.
The reason that I've singled out the BBC is that they are the largest broadcaster in the world
And? If they don't suit your personal preferences for news-gathering don't watch them.
My issue is that there is a legal requirement that in order to watch live TV I must pay a licence fee. 100% of that fee goes to the BBC. It seems to me that an organisation that is entitled to public funds should not advocate its own ideology.
Unless its ideology is really and truly unbiased, investigative and truthful reporting. Which, I admit, is The Question. It'll be interesting to see what the new DG, Tim Davie does to the Corporation.
"Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that Makepeace's basic quarrel is not so much with BBC reporting as with the licence fee.
A lot of right-wing opinion formers dislike it because it is a counterexample to the theory that publically funded services are always rubbish. In addition, nobody is making a profit off owning it.
The reason that I've singled out the BBC is that they are the largest broadcaster in the world
And? If they don't suit your personal preferences for news-gathering don't watch them.
My issue is that there is a legal requirement that in order to watch live TV I must pay a licence fee. 100% of that fee goes to the BBC. It seems to me that an organisation that is entitled to public funds should not advocate its own ideology.
Unless its ideology is really and truly unbiased, investigative and truthful reporting. Which, I admit, is The Question. It'll be interesting to see what the new DG, Tim Davie does to the Corporation.
Not since Hutton. And that deluded, lying, stupid bastard Blair whom I totally endorsed prior to that, so what does that make me?
PG beat me to it. National Review has many such articles. They're very conservative and very Republican. They also think he's soiling the reputation of the Republican party.
Is he though? What Trump has stood for and what he has done, is well within the confines of the party in general. I'd argue that his behaviour has gained supporters as well as lost them. People who voted for Obama then voted for Trump! His behaviour likely contributed to the surge in Democratic voters, but ISTM George Floyd and BLM were greater catalysts.
And despite him being lazy, racist, neo-banana republic dictator who couldn't string together a coherent concept and acted like a butt-hurt preteen on twitter; nearly half the country voted for him.
Did the National Review complain about his whinging about fraud when he won?
If anything, Trump may have given a new lease to the GOP. Any candidate who can act like an adult can now get away with more openly saying horrible things.
I have a a few Republican friends - and not RINOs*, I emphasise - who are very alarmed at what Trump is doing to the GOP, and that he is fundamentally hostile to democracy. He has not given a new lease on life to the GOP, or not its normal configuration. There may be a post-Trump single GOP, but very different in character. There is amongst my friends a fear that Trump may lead to a split in the party, or its destruction. Amongst my friends (NB: not a statistically valid sample) there is some real distress after Mike Flynn's call for martial law. It may continue to call itself the Republican Party Party but it would be a bitter vintage in old bottles.
I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that Makepeace's basic quarrel is not so much with BBC reporting as with the licence fee.
A lot of right-wing opinion formers dislike it because it is a counterexample to the theory that publically funded services are always rubbish. In addition, nobody is making a profit off owning it.
My view is that anything publicly funded should meet a public interest test. I can't see any reason why Eastenders, Killing Eve and the like are in the public interest. They are darker and more cynical than many programmes on commercial channels- I actually think that they are damaging to the public interest. When the BBC produces good quality it is often superior (e.g Planet Earth, War and Peace), but they don't need 100% of the Licence fee to produce the small portion of good quality shows that we actually get from it. Like any organisation, regardless of how it is funded, the BBC is liable to hubris. It is almost inevitable that a large, unaccountable organisation that has an unjustified sense of entitlement is going to display a certain arrogance.
I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that Makepeace's basic quarrel is not so much with BBC reporting as with the licence fee.
A lot of right-wing opinion formers dislike it because it is a counterexample to the theory that publically funded services are always rubbish. In addition, nobody is making a profit off owning it.
My view is that anything publicly funded should meet a public interest test. I can't see any reason why Eastenders, Killing Eve and the like are in the public interest. They are darker and more cynical than many programmes on commercial channels- I actually think that they are damaging to the public interest. When the BBC produces good quality it is often superior (e.g Planet Earth, War and Peace), but they don't need 100% of the Licence fee to produce the small portion of good quality shows that we actually get from it. Like any organisation, regardless of how it is funded, the BBC is liable to hubris. It is almost inevitable that a large, unaccountable organisation that has an unjustified sense of entitlement is going to display a certain arrogance.
If you only want the BBC to make programmes you deem worthy rather than also invest in popular (and comparatively cheaper to make) shows you may find the number of people opting out and having no live broadcast receiving equipment but rather relying on streaming of non-BBC services would increase, which will mean the licence fee for everyone else increasing. Or the BBC being unable to fund the "worthy" programming.
It's commercial necessity. That the BBC is publicly funded does not exclude it from market forces.
My view is that anything publicly funded should meet a public interest test. I can't see any reason why Eastenders, Killing Eve and the like are in the public interest.
How was the current accountability framework developed?
21.The BBC’s first Charter (effective from January 1927) was simple: it tasked the BBC to entertain and educate by the means of broadcast. This work was to be overseen by a Board of Governors with the licence fee in place to provide funding. The next Charter added “inform” and this simple imperative—inform, educate and entertain—became the BBC’s mission. This system continued until the 2006 Charter, which suggested that “the objects, constitution and organisation of the BBC would be reformed so as to enable the BBC still better to serve the interests of Our People.”
(...)
23.The BBC’s 2006 Royal Charter and Agreement set out the six Public Purposes of the BBC (...). The Charter states that the BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes. These outline the values the BBC holds when striving to achieve its mission to “inform, educate and entertain.” The Charter sets out the activities the BBC should undertake to deliver its Public Purposes in broad terms.
Just because something is old doesn't mean it shouldn't change. But objecting to something that all British governments for the last 93 years have been able to tolerate does suggest that this view is somewhat out of the mainstream.
If you only want the BBC to make programmes you deem worthy rather than also invest in popular (and comparatively cheaper to make) shows you may find the number of people opting out and having no live broadcast receiving equipment but rather relying on streaming of non-BBC services would increase, which will mean the licence fee for everyone else increasing. Or the BBC being unable to fund the "worthy" programming.
It's commercial necessity. That the BBC is publicly funded does not exclude it from market forces.
It wouldn't even need a significant number switching to non-broadcast TV. A large drop in audience figures alone would have the BBC scrabbling for support.
And I'm somewhat bemused by the suggestion that Eastenders is the vanguard of the truly terrible.
I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that Makepeace's basic quarrel is not so much with BBC reporting as with the licence fee.
A lot of right-wing opinion formers dislike it because it is a counterexample to the theory that publically funded services are always rubbish. In addition, nobody is making a profit off owning it.
My view is that anything publicly funded should meet a public interest test. I can't see any reason why Eastenders, Killing Eve and the like are in the public interest. They are darker and more cynical than many programmes on commercial channels- I actually think that they are damaging to the public interest. When the BBC produces good quality it is often superior (e.g Planet Earth, War and Peace), but they don't need 100% of the Licence fee to produce the small portion of good quality shows that we actually get from it. Like any organisation, regardless of how it is funded, the BBC is liable to hubris. It is almost inevitable that a large, unaccountable organisation that has an unjustified sense of entitlement is going to display a certain arrogance.
If you can't see why the creation of Killing Eve is a wonderful thing then we cannot be friends.
I liked War and Peace too, by the way. That's not the point. The idea that the value of a publicly funded station should be determined by Which Shows I Liked inevitably founders in a sea of subjectivity, as illustrated by the fact that you criticised something that has been an enormous international hit, both with audiences and critics, and which my parents in their 70s loved (well, Season 1 at least, I think they've cooled off it a fraction more recently but they kept watching).
I think you'd be better off arguing a strict classical-liberal position on the BBC, ie. the BBC should not exist as a government entity, because people have different ideas about what kinds of shows are worthwhile, and no one should be forced to pay for shows they don't like(*
That leaves you less open to charges of subjectivity than saying that the BBC shouldn't fund things that are "too dark and cynical", since one man's "excessively dark cynicism" is another man's "unflinching examination of the world as it is".
(*) And yes, I realize that a licensing fee is not a tax per se, but it's pretty close, in that anyone wishing to forego the fee is forced to give up television in general.
My view is that anything publicly funded should meet a public interest test. I can't see any reason why Eastenders, Killing Eve and the like are in the public interest. They are darker and more cynical than many programmes on commercial channels- I actually think that they are damaging to the public interest. When the BBC produces good quality it is often superior (e.g Planet Earth, War and Peace), but they don't need 100% of the Licence fee to produce the small portion of good quality shows that we actually get from it. Like any organisation, regardless of how it is funded, the BBC is liable to hubris. It is almost inevitable that a large, unaccountable organisation that has an unjustified sense of entitlement is going to display a certain arrogance.
@Makepeace it may just be me, but it's difficult to read that as anything other than re-interpreting 'public interest' as meaning 'what Makepeace likes, agrees with and approves of'.
That's not that different from the story that in 1937 Cosmo Gordon Lang, then Archbishop of Canterbury opposed the broadcasting (sound not television at that date) of George VI's coronation because men might listen to it not just in public houses but with hats on their heads. I don't know whether that legend is true. I'm afraid your approach to public service broadcasting sounds somewhat similar.
Besides, to some extent, the BBC's hubris and complacency is limited by it's being accountable, but the criterion, 'what Makepeace likes' isn't at all.
I think you'd be better off arguing a strict classical-liberal position on the BBC, ie. the BBC should not exist as a government entity, because people have different ideas about what kinds of shows are worthwhile, and no one should be forced to pay for shows they don't like(*
That leaves you less open to charges of subjectivity than saying that the BBC shouldn't fund things that are "too dark and cynical", since one man's "excessively dark cynicism" is another man's "unflinching examination of the world as it is".
(*) And yes, I realize that a licensing fee is not a tax per se, but it's pretty close, in that anyone wishing to forego the fee is forced to give up television in general.
No
You can watch Netflix and other pay channels without a licence. You cannot watch Broadcast TV without one. You cannot watch BBC iPlayer without a license. I am unsure about Brit Box. I would assume you can watch that without a licence. I find having a licence fee positive. It means we as viewers have more say. None of the none BBC channels have a viewers opinion programme like Points of View or the equivalent on BBC News.
The BBC has to be popular but it doesn’t have to chase ratings as hard as others so you get quirky programs like Only Connect. I would rather have the variety and pay for it,
I stand corrected. But can one watch ITV and Channel 4 without a license?
No. The license is not specifically for watching BBC, but watching live TV as it is broadcast (so watching Al Jazeera/France 24/etc over the internet would also count).
Thanks. So, just to clarify, if I choose not to get a license because I don't want to fund the BBC, I am restricted in what channels I can watch?
You can't watch any channel broadcast live. You can continue to watch on demand TV (netflix etc). I suppose stuff like twitch would fall into a grey area.
The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:
watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer.
This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.
Comments
I agree that the calling is not official. It is however based on the official figures and a considerable amount of data analysis. All because people want the results quickly. They want to go to bed knowing the result.
I listen to a podcast called Solvable. I'm somewhat behind and listening to episodes from July that were about elections in general and the upcoming US Presidential election in particular.
It is truly eerie to be listening to just how much of what happened in November was being predicted in July. Among other things, the episode I heard this morning, "Election Security is (mostly) Solvable" discusses how the system of mail-in voting could lead to demographic differences between the votes counted on the night and the votes counted afterwards, leading to claims from one party or another that the 'true' results were being altered later.
And the episode also discusses how the demand for quick results hampers the kind of auditing you'd want to do if you were being rigorous. But can you imagine what would happen if no results were being provided on election night? The general public would go apeshit.
All of the calls made by media are based on an analysis of the votes from each district (or even each polling booth, though I don't know in the USA specifically how detailed the information they have is - plus parts of the USA keep cutting how many polling booths a district even has) and comparing those votes to past elections. They know whether the results from a district are stronger for Republicans or Democrats than last time, and combining that with the historical record enables them to make fairly educated estimates as to the final outcome this time around.
Certainly, the particular network's election coverage I was intermittently watching would regularly bring up a county and compare how Biden's percentage of votes in the county was comparing to Clinton's percentage of votes in the same county. The point was to tell you that Biden was fairly consistently doing better than Clinton had done, and by how much. Even if Biden was losing a particular county, the fact that he was losing it by less than Clinton had done was itself an indication that Biden was doing well.
I think media varies considerably as to how much of that they show and how much is behind the scenes. The Guardian not being American, it's probably not surprising they didn't show as much detail.
Many of the Australian TV networks were picking up a feed from an American counterpart. IIRC I was effectively watching the (American) ABC.
More relevantly, news organizations exist to report information, not conceal it. If they have sufficient partial election returns (what counts as "sufficient" depends on the margin) to project the winner of a state they'll report it. If they've predicted enough states that they know who the next President of the United States is going to be, that's something they're going to share, not keep to themselves. Old news is no news.
My opinion is that your bet is pandemic induced fear.
I'd count the following as evidence:
1. If he says he won't leave;
2. If he doesn't leave by the date that he is legally obliged to leave?
3. If, following an official result, he refuses to comply with legal obligations in respect of the handover.
My issue is that there is a legal requirement that in order to watch live TV I must pay a licence fee. 100% of that fee goes to the BBC. It seems to me that an organisation that is entitled to public funds should not advocate its own ideology.
Why do you keep talking about the official result as though it hasn’t happened yet? True, the Electoral College hasn’t voted yet, and true, Congress has not yet met in joint session to count the electors’ votes. But never in the past has a president waited for those things to happen to begin the transition. And most states—including, I think, all states where Trump was challenging the results—have now certified the election results, making them official.
My opinion is that his bet is based on paying attention and expecting Trump to act like Trump. Meanwhile, I think your optimism—which I do hope prove well-founded—is based on what you’d like to be and what you’d like to think rather than what is.
And if your optimism is well-founded and Trump does leave the White House as scheduled, I have no doubt at all that his decision will have nothing to do with his concern for democracy and everything to do with what he thinks is in his own best interests.
The “evidence” suggested in the second and third points couldn’t exist before events which had yet to occur at the time of questioning.
And an attempt to get “evidence” of the first kind would involve asking him - which is exactly what you’re criticizing them for doing.
One could argue that it’s stupid to take anything Trump says as reliable evidence of his intentions. But it’s ridiculous to get worked up over a news organization asking him whether he’ll acquiesce in the handover of power after an election, when he continues to struggle to avoid doing so.
Like, for example, Trump's Likud allies possibly assassinating Iranian scientists with the intention of tripping up any efforts by Biden to re-enter the muclear agreement.
Whose ideology should it advocate? And if it's advocating someone else's ideology, doesn't that make it their own? I'm not sure the kind "view from nowhere" journalism is either desirable or achievable.
For example, here's a story from the top of today's BBC website.
So there's a lot of ideology involved there. For example, the article's author seems to be anti-murder. If you read past the bit I've quoted the author also seems to be anti-racist (and anti-racist-murders). There's also the ideological assumption that a forensic pathologist is qualified to comment on injuries stustained. Those are all ideological positions, even if they're ones most of the BBC's audience would agree with. What you seem to be objecting to is that the BBC isn't advocating your ideology.
"Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
From Macbeth Act 5 Scene 5.
Apparently everything that Trump has been saying for months and months and months before the election doesn't count as evidence that leads to legitimate questions about future conduct?
Only if you believe that the words of an idiot are a likely predictor of his future actions. If Gerald Ford had said the same things that Trump is saying that may have been good evidence in his case.
I would argue that an idiot's future actions are precisely the one thing that an idiot's words are a good predictor of. Being in control of his own body and all.
You hardly know me and yet you say my bet is pandemic induced fear? You hardly know me. Yes, I am concerned about the pandemic, but that is separate from the question of whether Trump will voluntarily leave the White House on 20 January. There is ample evidence that proves what Trump says and does are entirely different. Take, for instance, the recent suits in the swing states. When the state certifies the election results, they become official. And yet he refuses to accept their certification. The vote is then official. Trump is challenging the certification in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
The next step in the process is when the electors meet at the individual state capitals and formally cast their vote. Look for Mr. Trump to challenge the validity of that vote.
Then the official votes go to Congress for final review and acceptance. What will Trump do? He will again sue to challenge that action. (The man has long intimidated people by suing them). Even if the courts throw out all the suits there is a strong chance he will refuse to accept that reality. He is a megalomaniac
You wrote:
At what point are you willing to throw in the towel?
BTW. Attorney General Barr has now said after his departmental review of the vote, there is no evidence of fraud in the tabulations of the vote. In my High School debate team, if you can get the other side to concede your point, you have won,
I am far from sure quite what people mean when they use "official" in this context. I'd prefer to say that when the formal steps have been completed, we'll know with certainty who will be the US President for the next 4 years. None of this excuses Trump's stupidity.
The causal factor in these cases is often hard to determine. They seem to be angry about the licence fee because they think the reporting is unfair and they're angry about reporting they don't like because they have to pay for it. It's circular and self-reinforcing.
And despite him being lazy, racist, neo-banana republic dictator who couldn't string together a coherent concept and acted like a butt-hurt preteen on twitter; nearly half the country voted for him.
Did the National Review complain about his whinging about fraud when he won?
If anything, Trump may have given a new lease to the GOP. Any candidate who can act like an adult can now get away with more openly saying horrible things.
The thing is, Trump has actually been quite consistent about doing things that he has said that he will do. I think those things range from stupid to abhorrent, but there's a long list of things that he has said that would have been unthinkable from a "normal" president that he has gone on to do. So when he talks about how he might not leave, and talks about how the result is fake, and generally refuses to follow the civilized precedent established by every single president in living memory, you have to at least wonder whether he will follow through with this nonsense.
You seem to be doing an awful lot of special pleading for Mr. Trump here.
Unless its ideology is really and truly unbiased, investigative and truthful reporting. Which, I admit, is The Question. It'll be interesting to see what the new DG, Tim Davie does to the Corporation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdVgdVMPIs8
Not since Hutton. And that deluded, lying, stupid bastard Blair whom I totally endorsed prior to that, so what does that make me?
I have a a few Republican friends - and not RINOs*, I emphasise - who are very alarmed at what Trump is doing to the GOP, and that he is fundamentally hostile to democracy. He has not given a new lease on life to the GOP, or not its normal configuration. There may be a post-Trump single GOP, but very different in character. There is amongst my friends a fear that Trump may lead to a split in the party, or its destruction. Amongst my friends (NB: not a statistically valid sample) there is some real distress after Mike Flynn's call for martial law. It may continue to call itself the Republican Party Party but it would be a bitter vintage in old bottles.
*RINO = Republican in name only
My view is that anything publicly funded should meet a public interest test. I can't see any reason why Eastenders, Killing Eve and the like are in the public interest. They are darker and more cynical than many programmes on commercial channels- I actually think that they are damaging to the public interest. When the BBC produces good quality it is often superior (e.g Planet Earth, War and Peace), but they don't need 100% of the Licence fee to produce the small portion of good quality shows that we actually get from it. Like any organisation, regardless of how it is funded, the BBC is liable to hubris. It is almost inevitable that a large, unaccountable organisation that has an unjustified sense of entitlement is going to display a certain arrogance.
If you only want the BBC to make programmes you deem worthy rather than also invest in popular (and comparatively cheaper to make) shows you may find the number of people opting out and having no live broadcast receiving equipment but rather relying on streaming of non-BBC services would increase, which will mean the licence fee for everyone else increasing. Or the BBC being unable to fund the "worthy" programming.
It's commercial necessity. That the BBC is publicly funded does not exclude it from market forces.
This is asking the BBC to stop doing something that they've been doing for quite a long time: from a 2016(? - going by the copyright date) House of Lords report (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldcomuni/96/9606.htm)
Just because something is old doesn't mean it shouldn't change. But objecting to something that all British governments for the last 93 years have been able to tolerate does suggest that this view is somewhat out of the mainstream.
It wouldn't even need a significant number switching to non-broadcast TV. A large drop in audience figures alone would have the BBC scrabbling for support.
And I'm somewhat bemused by the suggestion that Eastenders is the vanguard of the truly terrible.
If you can't see why the creation of Killing Eve is a wonderful thing then we cannot be friends.
I liked War and Peace too, by the way. That's not the point. The idea that the value of a publicly funded station should be determined by Which Shows I Liked inevitably founders in a sea of subjectivity, as illustrated by the fact that you criticised something that has been an enormous international hit, both with audiences and critics, and which my parents in their 70s loved (well, Season 1 at least, I think they've cooled off it a fraction more recently but they kept watching).
I think you'd be better off arguing a strict classical-liberal position on the BBC, ie. the BBC should not exist as a government entity, because people have different ideas about what kinds of shows are worthwhile, and no one should be forced to pay for shows they don't like(*
That leaves you less open to charges of subjectivity than saying that the BBC shouldn't fund things that are "too dark and cynical", since one man's "excessively dark cynicism" is another man's "unflinching examination of the world as it is".
(*) And yes, I realize that a licensing fee is not a tax per se, but it's pretty close, in that anyone wishing to forego the fee is forced to give up television in general.
That's not that different from the story that in 1937 Cosmo Gordon Lang, then Archbishop of Canterbury opposed the broadcasting (sound not television at that date) of George VI's coronation because men might listen to it not just in public houses but with hats on their heads. I don't know whether that legend is true. I'm afraid your approach to public service broadcasting sounds somewhat similar.
Besides, to some extent, the BBC's hubris and complacency is limited by it's being accountable, but the criterion, 'what Makepeace likes' isn't at all.
No
You can watch Netflix and other pay channels without a licence. You cannot watch Broadcast TV without one. You cannot watch BBC iPlayer without a license. I am unsure about Brit Box. I would assume you can watch that without a licence. I find having a licence fee positive. It means we as viewers have more say. None of the none BBC channels have a viewers opinion programme like Points of View or the equivalent on BBC News.
The BBC has to be popular but it doesn’t have to chase ratings as hard as others so you get quirky programs like Only Connect. I would rather have the variety and pay for it,
No. The license is not specifically for watching BBC, but watching live TV as it is broadcast (so watching Al Jazeera/France 24/etc over the internet would also count).
You can't watch any channel broadcast live. You can continue to watch on demand TV (netflix etc). I suppose stuff like twitch would fall into a grey area.