MOTD Goal of the month

[WTF11]

I would be very curious as to who they reached out to at in the US.

The prem is a large and growing audience here. In fact, I think a lot of sports fans would put it above Hockey and possibly even Pro basketball. The NBA has struck all kinds of "deals" with broadcasters and many games aren't available unless you buy a "season pass" which is pretty hefty. The product itself bears little resemblance to real basketball. Like olympic wrestling vs "world championship wrestling". It's a farce of a product. In Indiapolis we have a pro team (of which we get to pay 2% of every dollar we spend on food, drinks and lodging to support this team yet there are no broadcasts on the local TV or cable channels unless you buy the pass.

In the end, when you don't remain visible in the sport or entertainment local world you'll become irrelevant. The short sided greed eventually will lead to the team moving since the interest level drops off over time. I really could care less if they left town and I got to keep an extra 2% of my money when I go out.

I have no idea as to who the BBC may have commercial relationships with in the US, but as always in the present day, the dollar/pound/yen will dictate.

What IS ironic when it comes to "national" broadcasters is that PBS makes it's content available worldwide, and as far as I can gather, for free. And its content is absolutely first class, as good as anything the BBC can claim fame for. The series on the war.in Vietnam (as an example), is peerless, without a shadow of doubt.

[spaldy]

Billy and Rev go to bed early. Billy is first to rise, followed by Rev about 10minutes later - after he sorts the lollipop sticks and roll of masking tape. After some spooning, Rev reads Billy 'Little Red Riding Hood'.

Looks like post of the year for 2026 is already locked up

[spaldy]

NPR became indistinguishable from CGTV, Korea Central TV and Iran International.

PBS's old stuff was journalism and investigative with a human interest angle. The last couple of decades it was nothing but propaganda. There is an inherent conflict of interest in goverment handing out tax dollars to broadcast "news". PBS confirmed that theorem every day they broadcast.

In the era of Internet access throughout the US the concept of a government media empire is outdated. Use the billions of dollars they recieve to upgrade the internet for everyone.... including the rural areas that still lack access to high speed internet.

[WTF11]

NPR became indistinguishable from CGTV, Korea Central TV and Iran International.

PBS's old stuff was journalism and investigative with a human interest angle. The last couple of decades it was nothing but propaganda. There is an inherent conflict of interest in goverment handing out tax dollars to broadcast "news". PBS confirmed that theorem every day they broadcast.

In the era of Internet access throughout the US the concept of a government media empire is outdated. Use the billions of dollars they recieve to upgrade the internet for everyone.... including the rural areas that still lack access to high speed internet.

The internet, whether it's high quality infrastructure or not, is most definitely NOT the equivalent of what you probably think of as the "traditional" broadcasters, simply because the internet is a mechanism, it produces nothing but "routes" that the content producers use to distribute their content. There is very limited governance there, little or no verification of ANY of the accuracy of content and most certainly no ability to challenge the veracity of what a content provider uploads.

As a stateside dweller, you might welcome the wild west environment, but the usual winners in conflicts at the time of the historical wild west were those with the biggest guns, not necessarily those who had truth and honesty on their side. Same now.

[spaldy]

Obviously, the biggest guns are controlled by the government. They always win when they give the money to report the "news" to their broadcaster of choice.

The press in the US is given absolute control and legal immunity to report the news. They abrogated that right and just started reporting what they were told to say. Few examples in American history show a greater dereliction of a constitutional right than the "reporting" during the pandemic.

Whether us old people like it or not the days of traditional journalism are over. The younger generation uses the internet as their information source. TV news broadcast/ Newpaper ratings are dying. The only ones that will be relevant in the future will be single source, censor approved, "news and information" in countries such as N Korea, Cuba, China and Iran.

Tying back into the thread. I really do find it incredible that the BBC bans highlight reels in the US. Such an incredibly short side view of the world. I understand the funding mechanism in onerous to the average UK resident but the cost exists whether a US resident can view it or not. Why not broaden that potential number of viewers which would increase the Ad revenue and potentially lower the cost the the UK taxpayer?

[WTF11]

Obviously, the biggest guns are controlled by the government. They always win when they give the money to report the "news" to their broadcaster of choice.

The press in the US is given absolute control and legal immunity to report the news. They abrogated that right and just started reporting what they were told to say. Few examples in American history show a greater dereliction of a constitutional right than the "reporting" during the pandemic.

Whether us old people like it or not the days of traditional journalism are over. The younger generation uses the internet as their information source. TV news broadcast/ Newpaper ratings are dying. The only ones that will be relevant in the future will be single source, censor approved, "news and information" in countries such as N Korea, Cuba, China and Iran.

Tying back into the thread. I really do find it incredible that the BBC bans highlight reels in the US. Such an incredibly short side view of the world. I understand the funding mechanism in onerous to the average UK resident but the cost exists whether a US resident can view it or not. Why not broaden that potential number of viewers which would increase the Ad revenue and potentially lower the cost the the UK taxpayer?

I say again, the BBC, an independent broadcaster, is funded by the license fee, which whilst collected by what you might consider "the government", is ring-fenced and the resulting funds are NOT "given to their broadcaster of choice". It's given to the BBC, the government has no choice in the matter!

I agree with you about the consumption of "news" by the younger generation, who for some reason seem to believe that anything on TikTok or Facebook is gospel truth, without that faintest possibility of that truth being verified. My grandkids are 17 and 14, we have conversations about "stuff" and this subject comes up occasionally. I'm heartened to hear from them that they are what you might call "outliers" from the mainstream, they do indeed watch "news" content, but usually (not always as Luke admitted recently), they do some research to validate a subject, if it's important enough and of sufficient impact to warrant it. Not ideal, they don't have the world view that is required to make a sound judgement as to whats worth researching and what isn't, but at least it shows willing.

And yes, back to the thread.......it's not a case of banning, simply not making them available outside the UK (slightly different). Sky do much the same even for those with subscriptions with their highlight reels although some are "allowed" on platforms like Amazon Prime and less frequently on Netflix. The difference is that the BBC is restricting access because of the funding model we've discussed and that they can't charge for the service (the rights to the highlight reels usually belong to Sky (the rights to all of those shown over the weekend are owned by Sky) who determine what can or can't be charged and even if they DO permit access, the revenue you refer to from advertisers would go to Sky, not the BBC, so there isn't any commercial advantage in widening access.

Money goes to money, as is always the case. The BBC isn't a "commercial" broadcaster, carries no advertising in the UK, and as it really IS independent of government, it can produce or commission content that it believes should be broadcast even if it offends the great and the good (although sometime, as in the case of the edited Trump speech" they get it wrong (although it took over a year for anyone, Trump included, to get hot under the collar about it!)).

Btw, the license fee is ?175, about $200 per annum, or say $5/week. I don't think many folks here actually think that's "onerous" although a free license (as the over 80s get) would be nice. For that you get (BBC specifically), four national terrestrial broadcast channels, CBBC and CBeebies (both channels for younger viewers), BBC Online which has a VERY large amount of content for streaming and catch-up for sport etc, 12 regional networks and 39 local radio stations. You are also entitled to view another 5 or 6 terrestrial broadcasters (ITV, Channel 4, 5, Local TV etc). Not bad for the cost of a latter at Starbucks?

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

The BBC also has a commercial arm and licences programmes around the world and sells content too.

The player back catalogue it makes available has massively shrunk no doubt linked in some way to the commercial arm.

Back on topic though good to see that goal recognised but the Harrison Reed effort from the weekend was also a belter.

[spaldy]

Reed's goal was brilliant but really a individual goal. DCL's was truly a team goal.

Both were incredibly good!