advertisement


BBC licence fee to be abolished in 2027 and funding frozen...

BBC licence fee to be abolished in 2027 and funding frozen

Government announcement will force broadcaster to close services and make further redundancies

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ee-to-be-abolished-in-2027-and-funding-frozen

Another distraction eh?
We're becoming more like the USA. The future of TV will be subscription based, which I suspect will cost households a good deal more than the licence fee. What happens to BBC radio?

We all have our particular interests we'd like to see represented, and for me it's the arts. What becomes of the Proms, for example? And they're just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what the BBC does in this area.

It's a distraction from our party - animal PM, of course, but a very sad day, IMO. It's no surprise, given this government. Perhaps I can organise a peaceful protest, but I might be arrested......
 
Ooh I'm conflicted, while I like the idea of a neutral UK based media outlet with worldwide reach providing quality content, the BBC hasn't been neutral for a long time. The news and educational stuff should remain funded, but far from the affects of day to day government comings and goings.

The BBC has been a bag of shite since Greg dyke left.
 
….. What becomes of the Proms, for example? And they're just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what the BBC does in this area..

The Proms will consist of “Land Of Hope Glory” played from dawn until dusk, sponsored by Kleenex so the flag shaggers can clean themselves up occasionally.
 
Hmmm, mixed emotions on this. It’s clearly not left wing so that’s a nonsense but it does report with varying degrees of bias on certain news issues and has been known to embellish certain stories with falsehoods. Mind you that’s the case with all broadcasters these days so we shouldn’t be surprised, but they should be above that.

However, my biggest issue is whether a TV tax is relevant in a world of multiple broadcasters, hundreds of channels and on demand transmission. I also think the standard of BBC output has dropped decade by decade, but that’s just my opinion. Counter to that though they still produce some absolute gems of programmes that wouldn’t otherwise get made in a world of high drama and mainstream priority. So I’m sort of 50/50, but when you consider the government’s reasons for doing this which is simply spite and distraction the argument is moot as it’s not about what they say it is. So another reason to get rid of the government... as if we needed one.

Finally though… there’s Eastenders… for that alone they need their funding removed ;)
 
It is probably is another 'distraction' but a welcome one from my POV.
I have always thought it borders on the 'criminal' to insist that any household who has a TV must pay a licence fee to the British Broadcasting Corruption whether they watch BBC or not, I personally have never paid it due to not owning a TV for a long time when I was younger and nowadays my partner pays the TV licence. We also pay for Netflix which we watch more of and I get Disney for a month once a year to watch shows like Mandalorion, etc.
I personally don't mind ads on ITV/ UTV or C4, time to go for a pee or make a cup of tea.
The only thing really worth watching on BBC imho are the David Attenborough or Brian Cox programmes, they really are excellent but I think that's down to the presenter.
 
Privately owned mass media is invariably owned by the very rich, who generally use it to promote their own interests.

Whilst a state broadcaster looks more and more like an indulgence as our media economy becomes increasingly atomised, the demise of a reasonably unbiased mass media operator reduces the platforms for voices of dissent on issues that go against the interests of the very rich, like social equity and the environment, and should be a cause for worry.
 
Let's not confuse any interest in reforming or making the BBC more efficient with power grabs to avoid political scrutiny and replace it with tame donors and their broadcast companies. The BBC manages to upset a wide range of interests almost all at once, some of them you or I would be in favour of I'm sure.

It's recent ludicrous transition to offering "balance" instead of impartiality has obviously failed to satisfy those like Dorries who are seeking to control output, just like they were warned it would. The danger, as Kenneth Clarke once said of the Tory right, is that when you feed crocodiles you eventually run out of buns. They will not be satisfied until the national broadcaster is controlled from Tory central office.

This should be resisted by anyone who wants governments of any colour, or connected interests held to account.
 
Yes a serious attack on the BBC (along with the changes at C4 too)

The Beeb is a pale shadow of it's former self, it needed to grow a pair after Maggie got elected 40 odd years ago, it failed miserably. The only time it had a pair was during Wilson's government, what a surprise, demonising a soft socialist, unions and the less than stinking rich. I will mourn the loss of quality content, not much else. This country is doomed to rank poverty a la US rust bowl but with more rain, and more rust.
 
The Beeb is a pale shadow of it's former self, it needed to grow a pair after Maggie got elected 40 odd years ago, it failed miserably. The only time it had a pair was during Wilson's government, what a surprise, demonising a soft socialist, unions and the less than stinking rich. I will mourn the loss of quality content, not much else. This country is doomed to rank poverty a la US rust bowl but with more rain, and more rust.

It's a state broadcaster I don't expect anything else. Nothing that couldn't be fixed by forcing it to adopt the standards of neutrality required during an election period though. Nevertheless, you only have to compare to PBS in the States to see what we stand to lose, PBS has to beg for public charity.
 


advertisement


Back
Top