Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Starting from Monday, August 21, 2017, BBC World Service don introduce another language service wey dem call BBC News Pidgin.

Dis new service go dey on top digital platforms and go use Pidgin wey dem dey speak for West and Central Africa as dem language.

https://www.bbc.com/pidgin

I heard about this on Radio 4 this morning. It's actually quite cool. As a native English speaker you can read it but it's difficult to understand as a spoken languege.

More gifts from the lunatic left, no doubt.

Shock! Horror! News in a language that means more people can parttake in them! Where is the world coming to?!

 44Ronin wrote:
More gifts from the lunatic left, no doubt.

This is, quite factually, the most irrelevant comment possible to make on this topic.

 44Ronin wrote:
More gifts from the lunatic left, no doubt.

Liberals! *shakes fist at the sky*

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
More gifts from the lunatic left, no doubt.

This is, quite factually, the most irrelevant comment possible to make on this topic.

Your meta-irrelevant response is more irrelevant than what you claim is irrelevant because you fail to explain how what you are asserting is actually irrelevant. Words like 'factually" mean nothing when you fail to present anything factual.

85 million pounds a year, to a total sum signed off of £289 million, sourced from UK taxpayers (already outside of coercive BBC funding), to deliver an expansion service to deliver news to a foreign market that doesn't pay for the service?

Key markets include North Korea, Ethiopia and Russia.

Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
More gifts from the lunatic left, no doubt.

Liberals! *shakes fist at the sky*

lolwut?

BBC expanding into Afaan Oromo (Ethiopia); Amharic (Ethiopia); Gujarati (India); Igbo (Nigeria); Korean (North Korea, South Korea); Marathi (India); Punjabi (India, Pakistan); Serbian (Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina), Telugu (India); Tigrinya (Ethiopia, Eritrea); Yoruba (Nigeria, Benin, Togo), Arabic and Russian languages.

And there's no political agenda to discuss?

I think you're the fist shaker here without the capability of a rational argument.

The only way that the BBC can expand into these markets is via government funding AKA coercion. Taxpayers have to be forced to propagate the BBC's agenda.....

I don't care about the topic in any way. I just think it's funny to laugh at the perpetually butthurt right wingers constantly screaming about liberals. It must be an exhausting way to live.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
More gifts from the lunatic left, no doubt.

This is, quite factually, the most irrelevant comment possible to make on this topic.

Your meta-irrelevant response is more irrelevant than what you claim is irrelevant because you fail to explain how what you are asserting is actually irrelevant. Words like 'factually" mean nothing when you fail to present anything factual.

85 million pounds a year, to a total sum signed off of £289 million, sourced from UK taxpayers (already outside of coercive BBC funding), to deliver an expansion service to deliver news to a foreign market that doesn't pay for the service?

Key markets include North Korea, Ethiopia and Russia.

Why?

Dunno, but I'm pretty sure the BBC's business plan stretched a little bit further than "let's piss off the righties".

Or maybe it doesn't. But then that's a really weird way of achieving that goal.

EDIT : What the frak do you have against Ethiopia anyways?

Got it. So anything involving taxes is automatically the "lunatic left". And I guess we'll ignore the foreign policy and influence benefits of having your news broadcast overseas, which is why you'd target places like North Korea (but don't they ban foreign media?) and Russia.

 Peregrine wrote:
Got it. So anything involving taxes is automatically the "lunatic left". And I guess we'll ignore the foreign policy and influence benefits of having your news broadcast overseas, which is why you'd target places like North Korea (but don't they ban foreign media?) and Russia.

Relentless expansion of government programs is not 'everything'.

Sorry if you can't help but conflate the two, let alone sit at the adult's table to have an adult discussion about it.

Since when are "more government expansion than I want" and "lunacy" synonyms?

If I'm honest I'd rather them use the money for better programmes and whatnot, rather than broadcast news to areas that (more than likely) have their own news network to begin with.

Seriously. UK TV license costs are growing each year. And I can see why.

 Freddy Kruger wrote:
If I'm honest I'd rather them use the money for better programmes and whatnot, rather than broadcast news to areas that (more than likely) have their own news network to begin with.

Seriously. UK TV license costs are growing each year. And I can see why.

TV licence fee increases to £147 in first rise since 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/01/tv-licence-fee-increases-147-first-rise-since-2010/

It's gone up £2.50.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Got it. So anything involving taxes is automatically the "lunatic left". And I guess we'll ignore the foreign policy and influence benefits of having your news broadcast overseas, which is why you'd target places like North Korea (but don't they ban foreign media?) and Russia.

Relentless expansion of government programs is not 'everything'.

Sorry if you can't help but conflate the two, let alone sit at the adult's table to have an adult discussion about it.

The remit of the BBC World Service is to provide an independent, world wide news source around the world. This is especially important in countries where the news media is heavily propagandized and government controlled. This is both a very important bit of the UKs foreign aid and development policy, and promotes the UK across the world as a fair and free place to do business. This is one of the reasons the UK is the leading center for banking and international trade arbitration.

What is your issue with the BBC providing a world news service in more languages? Can you provide some evidence, or at least clearly laid out opinion, rather than just vaguely oppressive and sensationalist sounding sentence fragments and insults towards those who disagree.

 Freddy Kruger wrote:
If I'm honest I'd rather them use the money for better programmes and whatnot, rather than broadcast news to areas that (more than likely) have their own news network to begin with.

Seriously. UK TV license costs are growing each year. And I can see why.

The World Service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth office, not the license fee.

The population of sub-saharan Africa is going to double in the next 30 years. This presents problems and therefore opportunities which post-Brexit UK wants to take advantage of.

However, due to the UK's imperial history, there is ambivalence towards us in Africa. Also, we will be up against the Chinese, who are going in hard and strong with lots of money.

Re-engagement will be considerably eased by talking the the African nations in their own language. Pidgin is the lingua franca of west Africa, understood widely by the mass of people who speak 100s of local languages such as Yoruba. English is only really spoken by the elite, and has colonial associations.

The BBC is probably the best known and most well-regarded news organisation in the world. It is trusted in a way that Chinese media will not be for decades. Therefore the BBC's investment in a Pidgin service is a very helpful preparation for the UK's diplomatic and business involvement in the region.

What I find interesting is that this is in some ways the birth of language. Prior to this there has been many books and publications in various creoles and pidgins, but to my mind at least the use of this West and Central Africa pidgin as a written language by an international news organization, rather than local use, for novelty or dramatic effect takes it from being a dialect to being a recognized international language. To be clear, it's not the fact that it is the BBC, or news, but any national or international organization using the language for factual output. I could be wrong. but I don't think that this has been done before, and it is primarily a spoken language, with most previous uses being to accurately capture the spoken form rather than as a form of written factual communication.

Tremendous efforts to castigate a BBC project from near-complete ignorance here.

Coerced taxpayer's money wasted on lefty agenda. Only license fee money is an elective payment for services, not a tax, and it isn't used to fund the BBC would service anyway, and it's more likely to do with a right wing economic project to win the UK overseas trade. Well done, reactionary!

 44Ronin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Got it. So anything involving taxes is automatically the "lunatic left". And I guess we'll ignore the foreign policy and influence benefits of having your news broadcast overseas, which is why you'd target places like North Korea (but don't they ban foreign media?) and Russia.

Relentless expansion of government programs is not 'everything'.

Sorry if you can't help but conflate the two, let alone sit at the adult's table to have an adult discussion about it.

You're not at that table mate. You're hardly arguing in good faith considering you went straight for the insults right off the bat.

The World Service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth office, not the license fee.

This is the most important sentence in this thread imo.

I don't pay my licence fee so that foreigners can get better news coverage, I pay it to get good domestic TV programs on my television set.
However, if the FCO think this is a good way of promoting British interests abroad and are willing to spend their budget on it, then they can read the news in any crazy language that they like!

It is the news readers I feel sorry for, imagine having to read the news in pigeon English...

I understand the logic, however the BBC news site and long wave radio have always been available all around the world except in countries like China that censor incoming communication.

The great cost is in developing the news information, which the BBC has to do for the domestic audience. Broadcasting it afterwards is a minor add-on. The long time presence of the BBC as a reliable independent news source is one reason for the modern UK's ability to punch above its weight in the international arena.

 Kroem wrote:

It is the news readers I feel sorry for, imagine having to read the news in pigeon English...

We can just hire people who speak pidgin as their native language.

I understand the logic, however the BBC news site and long wave radio have always been available all around the world except in countries like China that censor incoming communication.

The great cost is in developing the news information, which the BBC has to do for the domestic audience. Broadcasting it afterwards is a minor add-on. The long time presence of the BBC as a reliable independent news source is one reason for the modern UK's ability to punch above its weight in the international arena.

Yea I'm agreeing with you, if it is money well spent spreading English culture and influence then it is fine. One of the goals of the FCO is to do this in fact.

Personally I don't like the idea of the BBC introducing subversive elements into other societies, especially if it could cause damage to our international relationships.
It would be impractical to stop people from using the English content it in that way of course, but releasing content in their language sailing a bit close to the wind.

Organisations like Russia Today have similar criticisms levelled at them about being a mouthpiece for the Kremlin for example and this Qatar blockade was motivated, at least in part, by Qatar letting Al'Jazeera stir up trouble in Saudi and the UAE.

That's an...interesting service choice by the BBC, I can see the idea behind it, will be interested in how it turns out.

 44Ronin wrote:
More gifts from the lunatic left, no doubt.

...Sorry if you can't help but conflate the two, let alone sit at the adult's table to have an adult discussion about it.

Guy, it works better if you don't turn the knob to '11' right off the bat

lol wow

"YOU ALL ARE IDIOTS!" "NO YOU!" "wow, I'm offended, you need to be more adult about this."

Anyways, on-topic:
I think this is fantastic. I rely partly on BBC for my news in America, and think that bringing more information to other cultures is always good. BBC has not struck me as a propaganda machine either, though I leave open the possibility that it is and I am deluded.

The BBC is a machine for supporting the government of the day just a bit and getting blamed by the government of the day for being anti-government of the day.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The BBC is a machine for supporting the government of the day just a bit and getting blamed by the government of the day for being anti-government of the day.

That's my impression of BBC, too.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The BBC is a machine for supporting the government of the day just a bit and getting blamed by the government of the day for being anti-government of the day.

I've not noticed this. In fact, most of the news on BBC.com when accessed from America has little to do with the UK, unless you go digging / look at Sports articles.

nfe wrote:
Tremendous efforts to castigate a BBC project from near-complete ignorance here.
Only license fee money is an elective payment for services, not a tax, and it isn't used to fund the BBC would service anyway, and it's more likely to do with a right wing economic project to win the UK overseas trade. Well done, reactionary!

The license fee is so elective and contractual there's actually a whole goon industry to come harassing and intimidating the citizenry for it.

Enjoy the crony capitalism

In 2014 185,580 'elective' court cases.....because it is so voluntary that the state needs to be levied against the public to enforce the cronyism.

Does that sound like a free market to you?

185,580 with 162,851 prosecutions. That's like an 87%+ prosecution rate. Is that cronyism or does it need to blast over the 90% mark?

And best part is that I got suspended and posts deleted from this forum by mods for being critical about it

Who's reactionary?

But to stick to topic, one really needs to question the legitimacy of pigdin as a language. The last thing west africa needs is a news service in pidgin. It is a relic of the european slave trade

Here's an article of the BBC;
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/08/does-the-government-want-the-bbc-to-be-a-state-broadcaster

State media? You betcha!

 44Ronin wrote:
The license fee is so elective and contractual there's actually a whole goon industry to come harassing and intimidating the citizenry for it.

It is elective. You can choose to not watch TV if you don't want to pay the license. And I fail to see the problem with getting people to obey the law, the primary objection to the license collection seems to be "waaaaaah I got caught cheating" from people who watch TV (including the BBC) and owe the license fee. It's certainly far more generous a policy than any other tax collection would be.

And best part is that I got suspended and posts deleted from this forum by mods for being critical about it

No, that would be for your "lunatic left" post and similar. I seriously doubt anyone is ever going to get banned of have posts deleted merely for criticizing the BBC.

But to stick to topic, one really needs to question the legitimacy of pigdin as a language. The last thing west africa needs is a news service in pidgin. It is a relic of the european slave trade

It's commonly used and understood. What more "legitimacy" does it need?

Here's an article of the BBC;
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/08/does-the-government-want-the-bbc-to-be-a-state-broadcaster

State media? You betcha!

I'm not really seeing the problem here. State-run media is a problem when it has a monopoly on information, and becomes a tool of oppression. Maybe more direct government control might raise questions about the future quality of the BBC's work, but your criticism seems to be all over the place here. And it's pretty amusing that, after complaining about the "lunatic left", you quote a left-leaning site in support of your attack.

 44Ronin wrote:

Here's an article of the BBC;
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/08/does-the-government-want-the-bbc-to-be-a-state-broadcaster

State media? You betcha!

Did you not read that article, or are you hoping others don't?

The BBC is admired abroard precisely because it has, thus far, managed to avoid becoming an arm of the state, a fate that has befallen several supposedly independent broadcasting outlets in eastern Europe.

The whole thing is saying the BBC is independent, but the current government risks damaging the perception of independence, if not the actuality. The Tory party are well known for having issues with the BBC, swinging between wanting to shut it to fulfill their free market dreams and wanting it to be a political machine to fulfill their need for control.