It's the same with Canadian television. Pre-2000 its full of interesting, educational programming, post-2000 its a wasteland (not including Pre-Netflix Trailer Park Boys).
The idea that you could cheaply and affordably replay lectures with video, demonstrate concepts visually, show foreign lands and peoples, all with low cost of production was captivating to many.
Computers were initially seen by educators as a path to interactive TV. Making it easy to find video info, and to index it, even rotate images (repair videos and part assemble for example).
Point is, TV was seen a more than entertainment, it was a tool that could be employed to teach. Computers more so.
Then the Internet came, and it was at first mostly educational, intellectual. Sort of the inverse of what it is now.
Once everything exploded, it became entertainment primarily. Sort of like TV. The educational aspect is there, but muted.
Obtaining information from potentially interactive websites is better in every way than via TV. It’s obsolete technology.
Therefore, the BBC needs to transition to a website that happens to send signals out via TV for legacy users, but primarily, it’s competing with TikTok/Youtube/Khan Academy/Instagram/Whatsapp/Reddit/Disney/Comcast/Netflix/Sony/WarnerBros Discovery/etc. They all compete with each other, globally.
BBC sells minutes of entertainment/education/etc, and there are a fixed number of minutes in a day.
I think yes, but no. By this I mean, never compete directly with something that you cannot defeat. The BBC will never be Youtube, TikTok and the like. Just imaging what degree of state censorship will be required. Imagine all the content that will not be acceptable for a BBC Youtube like channel.
So any open platform will almost surely be a no-win for them.
(I don't see a lot of content yet from youtube, and none from tiktok which isn't submitted by endusers... even if they're streamers)
The BBC can compete with some of the rest. But if you look at the studios you list, those all make longer, non-user submitted content. The BBC surely can compete here. And it has in the past.
There's no reason it can't stream, as you say.
Note that my prior post was all about "the way it was" and why we're here now. Why traditional broadcasters from the 70s through to the early 2000s behaved as they did. What they were thinking during those times.
But outside of that, websites aren't better at some things. If they were, then we wouldn't be watching full screen video. There's something to be said for curated, created, static content in episodic format.
Maybe you meant 'streaming' instead of 'websites' too?
The issue ive heard with non-Latin mass is that it has lessened the feeling of global community among Catholics as they now do not all speak the same language (Latin).
Anecdatum, but I still feel like part of a community when I go to Mass in a language I'm not familiar with, because its rhythm and flow are the same more or less everywhere.
Disclaimer: I'm definitely not old enough to predate vatican 2, so I'm not from a time when Latin Mass was widespread.
Most of the ick factors are because of our empathy, which triggers upon seeing another human being in "icky" states of being and makes us imagine what it would feel like to be in such a state.
As a Canadian, it's not even that. Im not holding someone responsible for what their political opposites do. It's just not safe or smart to be close to America right now. And it may never be again. And that's fine. This is not the beginning of resentment towards America. It has been there for a very long time, because America has been the global hegemon and has been ruthless in keeping its position.
This seems to imply that someone can be "curious about the US, and might like to explore" but that they also already know the value of "what you get as a tourist".
I don't think that is valid. While my monoculture question came of as loaded, judging by the backlash of commenters, and I should haven't asked it, I don't think the OP understands the diversity of the US, and I don't think a judgement on value of travel in the US without experiencing it first can be made; even by US residents.
You're still on the same US-diversity train but there's nothing in that comment to justify it.
There are other many more layers to a tourist's cost/benefit analysis than just culture. Some of those layers will be common to the entire US:
- exchange rate between USD and their home currency
- affordability might vary across the US, but perhaps the consider even the cheaper places to be too pricey (the US is indeed a very pricey destination compared to much of Europe)
- the customs & border people deter tourists from visiting, no matter where in the US they want to go
- the US is a long flight away for many people in the world, whether they're going to Seattle, LA, NY, or Miami.
OP might be absolutely enthralled by US cultural diversity and still make the exact same comment.
But you don't know that. Maybe op has done multiple cross country trips across America. Maybe they've only been to NYC and Disneyworld. You could have asked them, but you didn't!
"do you think the US is a monoculture?" implying that the commenter does think that, and that that thought is ignorant and absurd. Instead of asking what they are referring to so you can discuss the point they're making.
What fear mongering politics? The commenter is obviously talking about the reported cases of people being detained, deported, and harassed for their political views.
> implying that the commenter does think that, and that that thought is ignorant and absurd
It is a widely held view of the US by many foreigners; they don't conceptualize how big and diverse the US is.
I thought a perfectly reasonable and likely interpretation of their comment is that the later sentence, with the "also" does not connect their `value of being a tourism in the US` comment to the political climate. Other commenters here apparently do weigh the cost of travel with the risk the government of the country will detain them.
They should make you sad. The leader of your country said we suck and that we would be better off being a part of the USA (and that he would MAKE us be a part of the USA)! It doesn't matter how many of you didn't vote for him when hes the one making the decisions.
