The manufactured hype over the 13th doctor

jodie whittaker

Yesterday it was apparently announced that the actor to succeed Peter Capaldi on Doctor Who will be Jodie Whittaker, meaning that for the first time ever, the role of The Doctor will be played be a woman. Being that I haven’t ban a fan for nearly a decade, I wouldn’t really care less, but apparently the progressives and social justice warriors have decided they want to rub their noses about it, and use it as an opportunity to virtue signal after a number of viewers took issue with it. Indeed, plenty of people on Facebook, including people I know personally, seem to have missed the point entirely.

First, Doctor Who hasn’t “broken the glass ceiling”. Not only is the “glass ceiling a myth invented by feminists to justify their authoritarian quota policies, but Doctor Who is also not the first sci-fi franchise to have a female lead. The Alien franchise did just that since 1979. Did everyone suddenly forget about Sigourney Weaver, or is she too old to even be a part of pop culture history at this point? Second of all, from what I can tell the reason some people don’t like the idea of a female Doctor Who isn’t because she’s a woman. It’s because the BBC has a very poor reputation as one of the most politically correct institutions in the UK. Naturally this would give rise to the idea that they only selected a female doctor to appease progressives.

And they would be right, but I think what we’re all missing the real reason they cast Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor – it’s basically a massive PR stunt. You might not believe me, but it will make perfect sense when you hear of the circumstances. You see, Doctor Who’s ratings are actually falling, to the point that it’s been suggest as a reason for Peter Capaldi’s departure from the show. I’m not sure how much further Jodie Whittaker could ruin Doctor Who, being that Steven Moffat had already done that since the start of the decade.

From what I’ve been hearing under his helm the show has become yet another mouthpiece for the BBC’s lefty social justice propaganda. Perhaps the most nakedly obvious expression of that agenda is the creation of Bill Potts, a black lesbian who looks like a near-exact caricature of a middle class social justice warrior type, who I have to assume was created solely to win praise from middle class lefty fans and media critics. The result? It won over the intended targets, with many media outlets heaping praise on the show and Bill Potts, at the cost of losing more and more regular viewers who are growing tired of the pernicious invasion of social justice in their TV.

They cast Jodie Whittaker with the same exact thing in mind, and I think it what happens next will look something like this. Right now the producers are busy congratulating themselves on how progressive they are, and generating hype by blowing the sexist comments out of proportion because it’s an easy way to get clicks from you. When they air the first episode with Jodie Whittaker, I predict that the show will enjoy a slight ratings increase on the next season premiere, only for ratings to continue plummeting further and further when people realise it’s the same boring show with the same declining quality in writing. After the producers realise that ratings haven’t gotten any better as a result of this publicity stunt, the producers will probably blame sexism for their declining ratings, and insist that the show needs to be more progressive, more political, all while they have to once again fight off speculation that the show will be cancelled, which will probably be more likely to happen if I’m proven right.

After that, the new doctor will be treated with the same fondness as the new all-female Ghostbusters did last year, as one of the most cringe-inducing symptoms of a time gone wrong, and even the producers will distance themselves from it. If you think about it the idea of the 13th Doctor is almost exactly like last year’s reboot of Ghostbusters. The producers shoehorned a female lead into the series for the sake of appealing to progressives and identity politicians, using her a conduit for some sort of feminist moralising, and they expect you to lap it all up, deeming anyone who criticises the new feminist icon to be a sexist. The problem was that by calling everyone sexist, you will alienated most of the fanbase, along with ordinary cinema goers. With Ghostbusters it lead to the film failing to turn a profit, killing off all hopes of a sequel and forcing the film to be given a subtitle on all home releases.

With Doctor Who, I think you will get exactly the same result. If Doctor Who doesn’t get cancelled, it will probably come back with a reduced budget, and the next season will have even lower ratings, so either way the show is doomed, and its reputation will be thrown down the garbage chute. This whole big to-do over the new Doctor Who star being a woman simply reeks of a manufactured controversy designed to sell a failing TV show. It’ll probably succeed temporarily, but once people realise that the show is still in its zombie years they’ll probably tune out. The people who wanted a female doctor probably won’t even care. They just want to celebrate the show “breaking muh glass ceiling” and insert their agenda as far as they can. They don’t care that they’re destroying a show that lots of people like. They only care about whether or not popular culture is progressive, and if you’re not in line with their agenda, then they’ll smear you as a backwards-thinking bigot or a misogynist until you either comply, or watch your career burn to the ground.

That’s what it’s all about in the end. The BBC, and indeed the entire mainstream entertainment industry, has been taken over by toxic ideologues who want nothing more than to control the way we think, and they want to use entertainment to influence us into accepting their way of thinking, and it’s not working anymore. They realise that they’re obsolete thanks to the Internet, and they don’t like it one bit. They’re probably wondering “why do people not like our totally progressive revolutionary TV show”, and of course nobody has even considered that TV is simply outdated, and so is Doctor Who.

Advertisements

My beef with TV licensing (and the BBC)

tv licensing

So I heard that the BBC are rolling out new changes to the TV licensing laws, which effectively mean that, starting from September 1st, you will have to get a TV license in order to download or even watch BBC programs via iPlayer. What it means it that, if you want to watch TV shows on BBC iPlayer on any broadcasting device at all (including tablets by the way), you have to pay the extortionate TV licensing fee (which as of 2010 is frozen at £145.50 per year).

For starters, it means that I have to basically stop watching anything from the BBC (which I can totally do because I don’t even like the BBC, for reasons we’re about to get into) because that rule extends to university students like myself. However, the main thing about this new law is that it shows how desperate the BBC has gotten. When I first heard of this, I thought it was basically an obvious attempt to target university students (as if we don’t have enough expenses to pay as it is) just to keep the god-awful BBC Three alive.

To clear things up, BBC Three died a natural death. Viewership began declining as young people moved towards tablets and online on-demand content, and so the BBC couldn’t afford to keep the channel anymore, as would inevitably happen over a period of time. They kept it running as an online channel, but while its rating aren’t catastrophically bad, I don’t see a lot of people clamouring to watch it. I personally don’t feel that people living in halls should have to pay an arm and a leg every year just to keep a dreggy, ancillary channel alive in a era where it is no longer relevant, and clearly can’t survive in a free market.

In fact, I’ve always despised the TV licensing fees. For those of my readers who live outside Britain, the TV licensing fee is an annual fee that we in Britain are forced to pay if we have a TV, and because the BBC is owned, operated and controlled by the government, that fee is basically how the BBC is funded (this is why BBC channels and radio stations don’t need ad revenue, and therefore have no ads). To me, this sounds like a blatantly socialist concept, as it is counter to the idea that a TV station should survive or collapse on its own in the free market. I also find it very bizarre that the majority of Brits actually defend the institution that forces you to pay extortionate amounts of money just to stay alive, so here are a few reasons why I think we should abolish the TV licensing fee.

1. The concept of a public TV station is outdated

As I mentioned earlier, the BBC has slowly become an irrelevant institution. In the old days, people were basically stuck to the live channels as they were the only source of TV programs, sport and news updates, and whatever they had what was you got. Flash forward to 2016 – now people can get their news from an array of online sources, including social media websites, and thanks to the invention of tablets and streaming services like Netflix, you can stream any TV programme you want without the need of a TV.

In today’s world, the TV is becoming a relic of the 20th century, and by consequence, so is the BBC, and they know that. Why else would you have thousands of British households cancelling their TV licensees? In a world where you can catch up on BBC’s programmes through the iPlayer service, why even would you bother paying the license for something you don’t need? With that in mind, we come to the only reason the new law is being rolled out – the BBC is losing money.

The BBC has apparently lost £238 million because people have decided that, with tablets, there’s no need to pay an expensive TV license fee. Of course, the regressive government institution that it is, they want to close that loophole because they’re afraid of becoming irrelevant, and thus unprofitable. The new law is simply a way for the BBC to try and make money by forcing people to pay for iPlayer, a service that, by all rights, should be available for free. All the new law will end up doing is driving people over to the alternative streaming services, which are significantly cheaper if not available for free, further crippling the BBC.

2. Why should I pay for bad TV?

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but most of the shows on BBC’s channels are mediocre at best. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule (such as “The A Word”, which is due for a new season), but most of the BBC’s programming consists of much of the same kind of claptrap you find on its competitors (Channel 4, ITV, Channel 5), all of which can exist without the licensing fee.

The only good thing I can say is that BBC’s shows have better production values than their competitors (the nature documentaries look and sound fantastic), and I have no doubt that BBC programmes might have been much better in the past, but I don’t feel it to be the case now. I’m aware that there are quite a few popular and highly-regarded shows on the BBC, like Doctor Who and Sherlock, but I feel that if people really like them enough, then they will survive without the need of a licensing fee. I don’t really care what people watch. If they like it, it’s their prerogative, but I shouldn’t have to pay for them. I don’t see why people should be prosecuted just because they don’t want to have to pay to keep Flog It on the air.

I’m also aware of the fact that the licensing fee also funds BBC Radio. To me that means it sustains one of my most hated institutions – BBC Radio 1. If I were to pay the licensing fee, I’d be paying to sustain the vapid cesspool of decadence and garbage that I always thought of Radio 1 as back in high school. The other radio stations, however, I have a mixed opinion of.

3. Why should I pay for propaganda?

In the old days, most people got their news from the BBC, and when I was young, it was generally assumed that BBC News is completely unbiased, but that’s complete balderdash. Because the BBC is essentially owned by the government, BBC News is the state news network, meaning that it will invariably be promoting some sort of agenda.

Many right-wing newspapers accuse the BBC of having a blatant left-wing bias, and they’re absolutely right. I noticed this during the Brexit vote, and the BBC showed an obvious bias in favour of the Remain camp (but then, most of the establishment media was in the same boat). They’ve also been known to spin anything involving Donald Trump (I don’t support him, but I dislike the intellectual dishonesty displayed by the media right now). Recently, Donald Trump said that supporters of the Second Amendment could hinder Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He said this while making a point about how gun rights may be endangered if Hillary got to appoint her own judges of the Supreme Court (which, if she’s president, she will). However, the mainstream media, including the BBC, reported it as if Trump was calling for Hillary’s assassination.

The BBC is also very much entrenched in the ideology of political correctness, which makes sense coming from a pro-government channel. The BBC have made various documentaries that serve to promote an ideological agenda, and the best example I could think of is on BBC Three, who made a documentary entitled Porn: What’s the Harm. What was it? It was basically a piece that promotes the lie that porn causes sexual violence, child abuse, and rampant underage sexual activity, with no proof at all. This came in around the time when David Cameron’s government came under fire for attempting to implement a controversial porn filter (which was also going to block a number of non-pornographic sites), and since the BBC does the bidding of the government, the BBC, through it’s teen-oriented channel, was focused on trying to convince young people that porn is evil. They even brought in a former child actor to promote the lie. They also love to tout the merits of cultural diversity, while simultaneously chiding American Christians because they believe in angels (as they did in at least one BBC Three documentary).

4. If the BBC can’t survive on its own, what’s the point of keeping it alive?

Being a filthy capitalist libertarian pig dog, I believe in the virtues of the free market. Hence, I’m diametrically opposed to the idea of the citizenry being forced to pay for something against their will. That is why I oppose state-funded media and arts, because it comes at the expense of the taxpayer.

As I mentioned earlier, the BBC is clearly struggling to survive in an era where we can live without it. If it weren’t for the fact that we’re forced to pay the license fee, the BBC would probably be dead, or at least it wouldn’t have the money to keep producing so much content, or it might have shrunk to just a few TV channels and possibly one radio station.

Besides, I remember watching the BBC often because nothing else. Whenever I could choose something better, I would never watch the BBC. Of course, what bothers me even more is the concept of a TV license enforcement division, with officers that can search your home if they have a warrant. I haven’t heard of any other country in the world that has them around. And of course, the enemy of the BBC, which controls 70% of news output on TV and radio, is competition. If it was freed from government control, it would be forced to succeed or fail by its own merits, like all the other channels, but apparently the government doesn’t want that.

 

5. What are the arguments in favour of it?

Since the BBC is entrenched into the fabric of British society, it generally goes unquestioned despite the horrendous extortion Brits have to put up with. Naturally, a number of arguments in favour of the licensing fee (and the BBC) have come up, so I’d like to address the main arguments before I tune out.

  • The BBC does wonderful work and we must protect it – From what? The BBC is a corporation. It doesn’t or shouldn’t need government protection. And further more, what wonderful work? If you mean TV programming, then that’s completely subjective. For instance, I can’t stand Strictly Come Dancing. I find it a vapid exercise in brain-melting distraction. That’s why I’ve stayed away from it ever since I was 14. If you mean the news, then, as I’ve already said earlier, the BBC’s news service is essentially politically correct propaganda that omits any details that are inconvenient to their narrative.
  • The BBC does not have to sell advertising – I agree that ads are extremely annoying, with their universally crappy jingles and barely passable actors, but I don’t think that the licensing fee is the best solution. Besides, you can now streaming videos online with minimal ads, and on Netflix, you can stream TV programmes with no ads at all, which means the point about having no ads is a moot one.
  • The BBC delivers a variety of content – So does the Internet, which provides the greatest possible amount of variety known to man, catering to every niche you can imagine, and the best part is that you can pick and choose what you want to watch or listen to online, and it usually doesn’t you a dime (even the internet bill in my house isn’t as expensive as the TV licensing fee).
  • The BBC charter defines quality content – Again, that’s entirely subjective. Of course, the BBC can boast higher production values than their competitors, but remember, that money comes from leeching the public dry. Also, you can find great content that the BBC doesn’t have online, for free. You don’t have to go to the BBC at all for high quality content. Hell, if you were rich, you could afford access to content that is even better than the BBC if you knew where to look.
  • The BBC is an essential public service – Let me be clear on this final argument. Television is not an essential public service, and neither is the BBC. To those who say the BBC’s remit is to inform and educate as well as entertain, education should be the responsibility of either schools or your parents, not a state-owned propaganda outlet such as the BBC. As for entertainment, you can literally get entertainment anywhere other than the BBC, and for information in relation to news, you can get your news anywhere else online. Barely anyone watches broadcast news anymore since you can get it all online now. BBC News even has its own website, and with iPlayer around (which they’re going to charge you for through the license fee), you don’t even have to watch the channels proper.

Through all of this, I my principal argument is that the TV licensing fee should be abolished. All it does in the long run is preserve an outdated institution at the expensive of the taxpayer, which I find to be a frivolous excess. As for the BBC, I think it should be privatised, which of course would force it to compete in a free market, freeing the citizenry of an arbitrary expense. Yes, this will probably mean ads, but if I were watching TV, I would rather sit through terrible ads than be forced to pay for a channel I don’t want to use. Besides, I’m very certain that privatising the BBC will have no effect on the quality of the BBC’s programming. I’m sure the BBC can still capably produce programming to its viewers’ liking without forcing the rest of us to pay for it.

The A Word – My final thoughts

the a word

Tuesday saw the finale of a show called “The A Word”, a live-action drama that was praised by critics for its realistic portrayal of what it’s like to raise an autistic child. This is a major step forward considering how little representation autistic people have on TV, and usually when autism is even mentioned on TV, it’s presented with every stereotype that the film Rain Man invented, and probably more, so to hear that a TV show with autism as the focus of the plot was airing on a major TV channel, I was definitely interested.

In case you haven’t seen or heard of it yet, I’ll fill you in on the details. The A Word revolves around a five-year-old boy named Joe Hughes, who in the beginning of the series is diagnosed with autism. As his parents, Paul and Alison, cope with the revelation, they struggle to try and help him, leading to arguments over who’s idea of helping him is right. Basically, Paul wants to help Joe integrate with the real world, while Alison doesn’t want the rest of the world to label him as “autistic”, and they’re both very stubborn when they think they’re right. We also see a number of other characters who, in some way, are involved with Joe’s life, but the show has a number of side-plots related specifically to them.

Throughout the show, I saw a lot of similarities between Joe and the way I was when I was a kid. Like Joe, I was very much a denizen of my own insular world. In Joe’s case, he feels safer listening to music (mainly 1980’s punk and new wave songs), and so for most of the show you see him wearing headphones. In fact, at the start of every episode, you see him walking along a road wearing his headphones, until he’s eventually picked up by his babysitter Maya (the subject of the show’s fifth episode).

The acting in the show is powerfully convincing, and throughout the show’s run it genuinely felt like there was some serious discussion about autism conducted through the characters. It also portrays the subject of autism with nuanced objectivity, with a number of characters who don’t quite understand autism trying to help in their own way. Alison’s father Maurice (played by the Ninth Doctor), for example, has an old-fashioned approach to parenting, which bothers Joe’s parents, but doesn’t seem to faze Joe himself, and that’s one thing I notice about the show – it tells the story from the point of view of everyone except Joe. We never hear what he thinks of all this. Granted, you could argue that this approach is more realistic, but I still long for a show from the point of view of an autistic kid, teenager, or even an adult.

This leads me to the other thing that bothered me about the show. Even though the show’s premise was chiefly about autism, a lot of the show focuses on the sex lives of its adult characters, and Joe’s teenage sister. I know this is meant for an adult audience, but I think they should have focused less on the sex (though to be fair, it’s not very graphic). For me, this is why I felt the series finale was such a strong ending. It was ultimately a more focused episode.

The episode, which aired on Tuesday, saw Joe’s parents reconciling in time for the opening of their new restaurant, but Joe goes missing, prompting a mass search party to blast music in the dead of night to look for him. It kept me on the edge of my seat, mainly because for the time that Joe’s missing, he is never shown until one of the characters finds him, and later the episode ends on this soaring note of confidence and familial harmony.

Even though I was disappointed with certain aspects of the show, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the show, mainly because the writers did a good job at representing its subject matter in a realistic and engaging way. It didn’t sacrifice any of its artistic integrity, nor did it fall prey to the mentality espoused by the likes of Autism Speaks. In the end, though it was sometimes flawed in terms of narrative and focus, BBC 1’s “The A Word” was good drama, and it’s arguably the nuanced representation of autism that TV badly needed. Let’s hope that other TV producers take some lessons from this.

Good riddance to BBC Three

bbc three

Let’s not give it any eulogies. It wouldn’t sound right.

I’ve heard that the BBC is planning to axe BBC Three as an on-air channel as part of numerous cuts being made to the corporation as a whole. While many people are obviously upset about this, I for one couldn’t be happier.

I’ve been waiting forever for that crass, lowest-common denominator channel to get kicked off the air and into hell’s bowels, mainly because it’s the BBC’s way of caving in to the trashy youth culture of the present. We’d be doing a world of good be saying goodbye and good riddance to BBC Three, because they’re effectively dumbing down the nation’s youth.

However, we shouldn’t be celebrating yet. After all, it’s not going to be axed until Autumn 2015, but that hasn’t stopped fans and celebrities from voicing their support for the youth-oriented network.

Given the kind of crap you see on BBC Three, why would anyone want to save BBC Three at all? It’s basically the BBC’s equivalent of TLC (the channel that airs Honey Boo-Boo). The only show that might be worth saving is Family Guy, but as I’ve said countless times before, Family Guy is past its prime, and it seems that BBC 3’s devotees exalt the newer (and dumber) episodes while ignoring the older ones. We don’t need Family Guy on Freeview anyway. If you want to see, just get Sky and watch it on FOX (Sky channel 124), or stream it online.

Another one of the channel’s highest rated programmes, Russell Howard’s Good News, isn’t immune to my criticism. Even that show has gotten stale, due to it using the same stale formula over and over again. It may have been good when I was 15, but when I was 17, I started noticing it getting stale, almost as though the show’s producers assume that young people are a bunch of brain-dead slobs who just want to see the same thing over and over again. Besides, before long you’ll be seeing all the episodes on Dave anyway.

All the other programmes on BBC 3 are either crap or uninteresting. If they ever shut down BBC 3, it’ll be the one smart move that the BBC has made this decade, and we’ll all be better off without it.

My thoughts on Doctor Who

doctor who logo

The Doctor Who logo as I remember it.

Seeing as it’s now the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who, I figured that it’s finally time for me to address a topic that I’ve been steering clear away from for so long, but have only become open about recently in college.

Sometimes I don’t like to think about it, but there was a time in my life when I liked the show. When I was 13, I felt there was pressure upon me to move away from the cartoons I loved so much as a kid. In my search, I found Doctor Who, which I felt had some interesting ideas.

At the time, I was willing to take idea from the show, and was rather patient of when I’d ever see the classic series (which lasted from 1963 until 1989). However, as soon as my Mom found out that I was watching the show, things went downhill quickly.

Apparently, my Mom thought I was a full-on fan of the show, and went around getting my Doctor Who merchandise. At first, I was just a little annoyed, but otherwise I was fine with it. However, the annoyance factor reached the tipping point when my Mom suggested that I go to a Doctor Who convention in Cardiff, in the summer of 2008. At that point, I stopped watching the show entirely, not because of any issues with the quality of the show, but because people had taken my interest in the show way too far.

Unfortunately, during David Tennant’s run as Doctor Who, the show became heavily commercialized to the point that after I had stopped watching the show, I came to view it as basically a mainstream, family-friendly sci-fi show that only a child could be frightened of.

When they replaced David Tennant with Matt Smith, however, things got exponentially worse. They changed the damn title (which didn’t even need to changed at all), and Smith’s companion was likely chosen just for sex appeal. Matt Smith himself just looks unappealing, and to me, he comes off as the 1Direction of all the incarnations of Doctor Who, mainly because they marketed the ever-loving crap out of him, knowing he was inferior to David Tennant. Not to mention, the show has gained the same cult status as football gets in this country. The tabloids love that show, and they make news out of the main star.

If that show has been around for 50 years, maybe it’s time to finally let it go. Times have changed dramatically since the “classic series” ended in 1989, sci-fi is not the same now as it was 24 years ago, and some things we thought were cool years ago now seem totally gay, especially with the amount of overacting in David Tennant’s run on the show (not to mention that the plotlines were getting ridiculous).

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that the show managed to survive as long as it did, but no TV show should ever last more than 5, 6, or even 7 years, because after around 100 episodes, the writing goes stale, and the episodes end up having ridiculous premises. Besides, the Simpsons has 25 seasons now, and that show’s been going down the crapper since The Simpsons Movie came out.

Overall, I haven’t really got a whole lot against the show, other than how out of hand it’s gotten. Will I watch the upcoming Peter Capaldi episodes? Absolutely not. Will I ever watch the Matt Smith episodes? Hell no. Will I watch the David Tennant episodes again? I highly doubt it. Will I watch the Christopher Eccleston episodes again? Maybe, maybe not. Will I ever watch the “classic series”? I’ll think about it. But one thing’s for sure, if we as a nation really love this show, we have to be willing to let it go. After all, it probably won’t be too long before the show runs out of ideas.

5 reasons why BBC Three sucks

bbc three

Welcome to the planet “Derp!”

BBC Three is one of those channels that I just look at, see their programming library, and then grieve for humanity. Yes, I’m hating on BBC Three, every teen’s favourite channel at the moment, but I have very good reasons for it.

In my teenage years, there were only two programs that I used to commonly watch on there (Russell Howard’s Good News and Family Guy), and as I got older, I began to gravitate away from them. In short, I began not to like them.

Seeing the ads for various other programs also gave me a very negative opinion of the network. Here are the five reasons why.

1. Crappy programmes

some girls

I apologize to the sexually frustrated fans of “Some Girls”.

I could mention Family Guy and American Dad!, but I’ve already done that way too many times. Instead, I’ll focus on BBC Three’s other shows.

BBC Three is designed for teenagers, and young adults who don’t have a brain. Therefore, it should only be natural that the channel would kowtow to sensationalist tactics in order to draw in young minds. Many, if not all of its programmes are catered to young people. Many of the comedies are just awful. The ads for some programmes like Some Girls just leave such a poor impression that I just consider it a bad investment of my time. And then of course there’s the awful Way to Go sitcom, which was cancelled within only 6 months.

BBC Three also has numerous (awful) reality TV programmes like Song Marry Avoid? and Extreme OCD Camp (both of which I’m sure nobody with a brain watches), and this leads to another problem.

2. It kowtows to the popularity of reality TV

Reality TV has been on the rise in this country since the year 2000, and virtually every UK channel has been joining in just to make money. During this time, many lowlifes being being built up as stars whose fame would only last for a short while.

The earliest of these more pathetic reality TV shows I could remember is The World’s Strictest Parents, which places two deliberately obnoxious British teens (who make the rest of us look bad) in strict families from around the world in order to teach them to be obedient. Aside from that premise being completely pathetic and morally intolerable, it’s also a complete contradiction of the channel’s “teen values”.

Speaking of values…

3. The pretentious moralism

stacey dooley

Pictured: The common ratings whore

Some of BBC Three’s documentaries delve into serious issues, which no teen cares about, nor has the right to care about since they still don’t know enough about how the world works. Occasionally, BBC Three relies on one Stacey Dooley, a young woman who basically makes a living travelling to poorer countries, where she covers issues like child labour, child warfare, sex trafficking, etc., and cries in front of the camera in order to make it look like she really cares, in what I like to call the “Dooley Technique”.

south park

“Jeez, what a li’l crybaby!”

Stacey Dooley is not the only example of the channel’s petty moralism. BBC Three has a programme called Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents, where two teens go on a vacation, and their parents are sent to spy on them. All this is basically just a condemnation of teen sex just for the sake of appeasing the old men running the BBC.

BBC Three seems to have the same kind of moral pretentiousness as the soulless tabloids, except that the tabloids hide it with softcore porn. BBC Three on the other hand is completely naked, with no real way to hide its pretentious moralism from the masses.

4. They’re dumbing down Britain’s youth

Sure, you could say that about all TV, but not all TV channels do this. BBC Three, ITV 2 and Channel 5 are basically our equivalents of America’s Fox Network, in that there’s no low they won’t sink to grab ratings. Consequently, BBC Three is full of lowbrow programmes that only rot the brain.

The BBC has a factual channel (BBC Four), but the problem is that BBC Four is the most boring channel you can ever watch in this country. BBC Three has a show called Free Speech, but all it does is take serious political issues and dumb them down by fifty shades in order to get young people to have an opinion on them. If that is dumbing people down, then I don’t know what is.

5. Their idea of teen culture is blatantly stereotypical

youth stereotypes

I’ve already established that BBC Three attempts to appeal to the youth and their culture. But what is their view on youth culture? It seems to me that everyone in the British media views teenagers the same way, as “moody” or “troublesome chavs”. Come on, I thought we were past his.

The network also assumes that all teens like the pop music, alternative rock, and electronic dance music that’s on the radio today. I don’t, and look at me, I’m doing just fine. It also assumes that all teenagers are stupid enough to fall for their crap.

Well, there are around 5.4 million teenagers in the UK, and only 624,691 people actually like that channel, most of whom are from London. Once again, the British media expects London to be the ideal for all of Britain, but in BBC Three, they think all teens are like obnoxious, troublesome London teens, who themselves are outnumbered by the ordinary teens, you know, the ones who disprove the stereotypes everyday.

Conclusion

BBC Three is nothing more than a populist network trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, just like Channel 5 and ITV 2. If we ignore channels like these, then you may find something better, and you’ll probably forget all about that channel.

What I learned listening to BBC Radio 1

radio 1

No matter how hard she tries to sell herself, she’s just, really ugly, both physically and in the soul.

In my last years of high school, I knew next to nothing about mainstream culture, and I owe that to the fact that I pretty much shut myself in my world all the time. Considering how bad mainstream music sucks, that’s probably for the best. While I was on the bus, the only music I had was pretty much Radio 1 non-stop, probably because the bus was full of impressionable kids and young teenagers.

Before I came to know real music, I could easily be seduced by the toxic noise perpetuated by Radio 1. Now, however, I’ve learned to religiously avoid mainstream music of the 21st Century. Why? All those bus trips home I spent (reluctantly) listening to BBC Radio 1 taught me a horrible lesson about mainstream music.

Pretty much every song that makes it to the charts is either an electronic, robotic, dance song, a generic, out of touch, racist rap song, or a god-awful pop song made by a pretentious, possibly gay boy band. I absolutely hate these songs, but the reason why they sell so much (which is how they enter the charts to begin with) is because they know how to market themselves. I’m willing to vouch that they focused more on marketing than their actual musical talent.

Now you might be thinking that I just say that because I like classic rock, hard rock, 80’s New Wave and heavy metal in general. If you are, then you might be right, considering that rock/metal fans oppose pop. But I oppose mainstream pop for moral reasons, as I’ve said before.

My big problem is that BBC Radio 1 is some kind of brainwashing station that holds enormous power over youth culture.

mtv

Kind of like a certain TV channel.

I swear that the really young only listen to Radio 1 because they’re told to. If I had to listen to any radio station, it would be either BBC Radio 2, or Absolute Radio 80’s.

As my high school years came to a close, I became increasingly more infatuated with 80’s culture, and increasingly tired of current trends. Hence, I began to hate any music that plays on Radio 1 because it mainstream. Call me a contrarian if you want, call me a devil’s advocate if you please. I can take it. I’ve been taking it a lot in recent years.

I just wish we didn’t have to live with this culture of electronic mediocrity. I just wish I had a choice earlier.