advertisement


Hey, we could stop the licence fee then sell off the BBC piecemeal to our mates...

h.g. said:
You can see no noticeable distinction between public service broadcasting and commercial broadcasting at present in the UK?

Should the UK maintain public service broadcasting or is it unimportant to the quality of living here for the majority?

You state you used to be a fan but are no longer. Is this because the BBC changed the type of programming, the type of programming is now equally well or better provided by others or that you have lost interest over time in that type of distinctive programming?

You mention being happy to use pay-as-you-go for BBC programmes but not for the NHS which you want to fund as a national service. Why aren't you happy to use pay-as-you-go for health? And do some of these reasons perhaps apply to public service broadcasting?
Click to expand...

I'll answer your last point first if I might.

Healthcare free at the point of need is a human right, need, and a collective responsibility. The provision of reality TV is not.

When I was growing up,BBC News was globally respected authority. There were beloved domestic entertainers providing entertainment in the slots now taken by Trevor from Teeside and Cathy the Cook from Baker's Breakfast.

The world's leading sporting events were shown across the weekend, with grands prix often on a Sunday and the whole of Saturday afternoon taken up by quality sport.

The list was endless. Anything worthy of capturing the public's imagination migrated to pay per view/subscription channels years ago now leaving a bare skeleton of the service once offered.

Why I should legally be asked to fund that for those still entertained by watching unknowns living together for a few weeks is beyond me. Such a national service is, I believe, somewhat different to that which delivers premature births and puts people's cancers into remission.
 
awkwardbydesign said:
Those of us who have no children shouldn't be forced to pay for schools.
Click to expand...

Children need education. All of us need healthcare. None of us need a substandard broadcasting channel in the 21st century. It's pretty simple for most. One of the three is not a need and is impacting the quality of the two that are.
 
I would pay the license fee for the radio alone. If the BBC goes I hope those on here who berate it’s news coverage get what they wish for. I personally think they should accept ads & stick two fingers up at the Govt, no need for a license fee then or they at least can reduce it. Keep the radio commercial free & put 3 mins of ads every hour on TV, accept some sponsorship & product placement.
 
I have to fund local council staff going on jollies to foreign countries for which I don't see much benefit.

I have to fund the BBC.

For which I do see benefit.
 
My view is that at present BBC TV news and current affairs is simply not fit for purpose. It is clearly not impartial and is often vacuous and popularist. The biggest irony is just how much better Sky News is at present. I never thought I’d say that in a million years!

The rest of the BBC however largely lives up to its remit or hugely exceeds it. I’m a big fan of BBC4, BBC2, R3, R4, 6Music etc. That is to me worth the license fee as arts and science programming never survives well in a purely commercial environment. That is what state broadcasting needs to do IMO, i.e. very actively promote education and the arts. FWIW I feel it should be paid for via normal taxation rather than a separate license fee, but it should certainly exist.
 
Watching the Andrew Marr show this morning I thought it was a PPB for the Labour Party. Which is fairly left wing I think.

Platforms for RLB and Angela Rayner preceded by a Guardian journalist and some other middle of the road sorts.

BBC a Cummings puppet show?

Never!
 
Nero said:
What I would object to though I having to watch advertisements too. That's the main reason I don't watch commercial TV (C4 is just about bearable)
Click to expand...

The BBC in the States has more adverts than their normal channels !! perhaps it is more popular and hence a bigger draw for the advertisers.
 
Satisfaction with the BBC, by audience group The majority of adults have a positive overall impression of the BBC and are satisfied with the BBC’s services Around two-thirds (64%) of the UK population have a positive overall impression of all the services that the BBC provides.9 10 The data indicate that 16-24s and people in AB socio-economic groups rate the BBC more favourably at this overall level. Satisfaction levels for individual BBC platform services show a similar story: just over two-thirds of TV audiences (68%) are satisfied with BBC television services, around three-quarters (74%) of radio.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/124420/BBC-annex-2-performance.pdf
 
Seanm said:
I think we need to be able to distinguish between between supporting public service broadcasting and offering unconditional support to an institution that has many demonstrable failings and a history of not countenancing any kind of criticism - except from the right.

There's a sort of generalised Stockholm syndrome at work here. The BBC has never, since its inception, stopped sucking up to the right, despite the regular beatings it takes from them. Meanwhile the left never cease to defend an institution that has been used against it at every significant point in its history.

F__ that, I say. The BBC needs to face up to the consequences of its own actions, and the left have to let it learn, even if the lesson is fatal. We should withdraw our support. The BBC has to be placed under pressure from the left as well as the right or things are only going to go one way.
Click to expand...
So just because you don’t like some of the news coverage you are happy for the whole organisation to crumble? Can’t wait to see what the alternative is like. It is not Stockholm Syndrome to appreciate that the BBC is a good thing.
 
The BBC is safe in this government’s hands.

While watching Top Gear last night, I noticed Dominic Cummings in the audience, he’s obviously a big fan

49546855631_e331a38d6e_o.jpg
 
Woodface said:
So just because you don’t like some of the news coverage you are happy for the whole organisation to crumble? Can’t wait to see what the alternative is like. It is not Stockholm Syndrome to appreciate that the BBC is a good thing.
Click to expand...
It's really not a question of liking or not liking this or that kind of content. It's that the BBC has failed to deliver on a very important part of its public service remit, and consistently refused to listen to any criticism on that score, even when it was backed up by evidence from its own trust. It's that the problem has continued to get worse, despite more or less unconditional support from the left and unceasing hostility from the right. So I'm saying support for the BBC ought to be conditional on the institution showing some openness to criticism and willingness to listen to reform proposals.

Things could get worse without the BBC, in many ways. (News and current affairs are unlikely to get worse.) But the direction of travel is clear: things are going to get worse with and for the BBC as well, if all the pressure to change is coming from the right. Lefties and liberal types really haven't done them any favours over the years by supporting them whatever they do on the basis that the only alternative is Fox News. It's not. There are lots of ways that public service media can be done differently.
 
misterdog said:
Satisfaction with the BBC, by audience group The majority of adults have a positive overall impression of the BBC and are satisfied with the BBC’s services Around two-thirds (64%) of the UK population have a positive overall impression of all the services that the BBC provides.9 10 The data indicate that 16-24s and people in AB socio-economic groups rate the BBC more favourably at this overall level. Satisfaction levels for individual BBC platform services show a similar story: just over two-thirds of TV audiences (68%) are satisfied with BBC television services, around three-quarters (74%) of radio.
Click to expand...

Cool.

Then in a free market economy as advocated by every Conservative government over the past 40 years, I should have the choice to opt out and to choose Tidal instead as my source of entertainment. Would you not agree?

I don't have to pay road tax if I choose not to own a car. Whilst I agree that the road system is almost as essential as education and health in 2020 (and that therefore we should all contribute), we do. Road tax is for using the roads. Not for their maintenance.
 
Roger,

It's a thinly veiled attempt by Johnson to clamp down on being held to account. They want to reduce the reach of the BBC. The funding method means that it's independent of government and corporations.

We should be wanting to protect the BBC from this political attack. Johnson has already tried to ban journalists he doesn't like from No.10 briefings, now he and his close advisers are going after the public broadcaster. Your reaction is what Cummings is hoping for. The next thing they target might be more important to you - should we then say "sod you, we don't use whatever it is"?
 
Tony L said:
My view is that at present BBC TV news and current affairs is simply not fit for purpose. It is clearly not impartial and is often vacuous and popularist. The biggest irony is just how much better Sky News is at present. I never thought I’d say that in a million years!

The rest of the BBC however largely lives up to its remit or hugely exceeds it. I’m a big fan of BBC4, BBC2, R3, R4, 6Music etc. That is to me worth the license fee as arts and science programming never survives well in a purely commercial environment. That is what state broadcasting needs to do IMO, i.e. very actively promote education and the arts. FWIW I feel it should be paid for via normal taxation rather than a separate license fee, but it should certainly exist.
Click to expand...

I am largely in agreement with you Tony. My biggest beef with the BBC is that it should be impartial - its Charter says as much - but it's not. Some examples are
1. that it constantly pushes the nonsensical 'climate change' agenda - hardly a day goes by without an article about it in the news or on their website about it - according to them: hot weather = climate change; cold weather = climate change; dry weather = climate change; snow = climate change; rain - climate change.
2. It's pro-EU bias is astounding, and has been since before the referendum. Completely out of step with the majority.
3. It's pro-left political bias is also evident, Andrew Marr being a prime example.

I think the funding model is now outdated. It's fine to have a state broadcaster - some of their documentaries and dramas are great, and Gary Lineker apart, their sport coverage is pretty good overall. However, having to have a licence to watch TV - whatever channel - in this day and age is daft. It could easily be paid for via normal taxation.

It's also very easy to not have a TV licence and not be prosecuted for it, not that I condone law-breaking.
 
Rcook said:
I am largely in agreement with you Tony. My biggest beef with the BBC is that it should be impartial - its Charter says as much - but it's not. Some examples are
1. that it constantly pushes the nonsensical 'climate change' agenda - hardly a day goes by without an article about it in the news or on their website about it - according to them: hot weather = climate change; cold weather = climate change; dry weather = climate change; snow = climate change; rain - climate change.
2. It's pro-EU bias is astounding, and has been since before the referendum. Completely out of step with the majority.
3. It's pro-left political bias is also evident, Andrew Marr being a prime example.

I think the funding model is now outdated. It's fine to have a state broadcaster - some of their documentaries and dramas are great, and Gary Lineker apart, their sport coverage is pretty good overall. However, having to have a licence to watch TV - whatever channel - in this day and age is daft. It could easily be paid for via normal taxation.
Click to expand...

1. So you are a climate change denier, so what? The science is with the BBC.
2. It's pro-Brexit bias is astounding, every vox pop is from a Leave area. Every shouty red faced finger jabber they could find.
3. It's right wing political bias is also evident, Andrew Neil being a prime example.

The funding model keeps it out of Johnson's hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top