BBC licence fee

[bluethrunthru]

I spoke to a colleague today on an unrelated point and when the conversation strayed onto this topic he said the BBC were biased as they never interview Johnson or his ministers.

Just now on Newsnight......"we asked the Government for someone to interview but we were told nobody was available". They won't put anyone up for C4 news its 170 days since they put someone up for GMB.

However my colleague reads the Telegraph and the Mail so despite the fact the government is in hiding and not appearing anywhere but because of where he gets his "opinion" columns its clear evidence of BBC bias.

 

[meltonblue]

Do you not think the BBC are guilty of that too?

No I don’t, because I see too many people from either side of the debate say it.

I watch the news and listen to it regularly on the radio and don’t see it as particularly skewed either way. It has commentators on its editorial programmes that are right leaning and some that are left leaning, I think they strike the balance pretty well and keep that opinion segregated from their news reporting even when it’s done in the same programmes.

 

[meltonblue]

The thing is those types of programs I mentioned are where a bulk of the bbc budget goes. Over £1b on bbc 1 alone. £86m on a new set for eastenders??? News aside as we disagree completely on its validity as a neutral provider, what is the ‘public service’ that the bbc provides that couldn’t be repackaged into a subscription model. The three main formats TV/radio/website could be individually priced so that the consumer could choose.

If that were to happen then it would cease to exist. Im not sure how you’d do subscription for radio btw without making it internet only and severely restricting its use.

I’m not arguing it couldn’t be run better, as I completely agree with that opinion. I disagree with getting rid of it in its entirety or going to a subscription model.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I think I may have to go down the route of BBC censors of years gone by...

I am allowed 3 cunts - 5 bollocks - 1 twat and a wanker per day

 

[Pedestrian]

If that were to happen then it would cease to exist. Im not sure how you’d do subscription for radio btw without making it internet only and severely restricting its use.

I’m not arguing it couldn’t be run better, as I completely agree with that opinion. I disagree with getting rid of it in its entirety or going to a subscription model.

The present licence fee is partly for the radio content is it not? It would be done in exactly the same way as it is now only you’d only be expected to access what you pay for
TBH I think we both know they are going to have to change something because more and more people are simply choosing not to pay but still accessing the content they prefer. The licence inspectors have virtually no authority and the BBC thankfully isn’t in the practise of getting court warrants to enter properties. A quick YouTube search gives details on how to manage the inspectors when/if they attend your house.
Considering the financial collapse that appears to be heading our way I’d argue that the TV licence is low down on the list of necessities for those struggling financially.
These two factors along with social media campaigns funded from alleged dubious sources will bring about the change imo.

 

[Pedestrian]

If that were to happen then it would cease to exist. Im not sure how you’d do subscription for radio btw without making it internet only and severely restricting its use.

I’m not arguing it couldn’t be run better, as I completely agree with that opinion. I disagree with getting rid of it in its entirety or going to a subscription model.

You agree it needs to be run better but you’re against a subscription model because it wouldn’t be able to continue in its present format?? Is that not a contradiction. For me the worst of the bbc is the most commercially viable content, bbc 1 and radio 1. If the funding from subscription didn’t match the current £5-6b which it definitely wouldn’t then the more expensive content could be sold off. Eastenders and most of the other crap on bbc1, most If not all of the expensive muppets on radio 1 could go. Get rid of the dinosaurs on motd who earn shocking amounts for very poor quality input. Streamline the service to meet the needs of those that subscribe.

 

[Fame Monster]

No I don’t, because I see too many people from either side of the debate say it.

I watch the news and listen to it regularly on the radio and don’t see it as particularly skewed either way. It has commentators on its editorial programmes that are right leaning and some that are left leaning, I think they strike the balance pretty well and keep that opinion segregated from their news reporting even when it’s done in the same programmes.

I disagree. I think a lot of people either side of the debate say it when it relates to broadcast news coverage where I think the BBC generally does ok (but not brilliant) but I think the criticism is only from one side when it comes to its online news/website, which is that steeped in identity/far-left/racial politics, it might as well be the Guardian's sister website. And as per your original point, I think it blurs the line between fact and opinion to achieve it.

I posted this the other day: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ar...his-years-harvest-was-too-hard-for-uk-workers

That's a prime example of a headline that blurs the line between fact and opinion. If you go on the BBC's website, pretty much every headline with a quote has the quotation marks at the start and end of the headline yet this has it on just two words so if you're scrolling through or not paying much attention, you can easily mistake it for fact. There's also the balance issue within the article where a counteropinion isn't given about the exploitative conditions, and I'm also not sure why the BBC would lead with this as a main headline because Fullfact have dismantled the argument that British workers are lazy so they shouldn't be giving centre-stage to opinions which are specious at best.

Are the British workforce lazy idlers? – Full Fact

After the Evening Standard leaked content of 'Britain Unchained', the magnum opus of five Tory MPs, there has been a media defence of the British labour force. But what do the statistics say?

fullfact.org

There's lots of other examples already given on this thread too (White privilege, Karens etc) where due impartiality has just gone out the window as has the line between fact and opinion.

Whether or not you think the BBC should be privatised or you'd like to see some changes to its funding model, I think it's pretty clear something has gone very badly wrong in the news department the past few years.

 

[meltonblue]

You agree it needs to be run better but you’re against a subscription model because it wouldn’t be able to continue in its present format?? Is that not a contradiction. For me the worst of the bbc is the most commercially viable content, bbc 1 and radio 1. If the funding from subscription didn’t match the current £5-6b which it definitely wouldn’t then the more expensive content could be sold off. Eastenders and most of the other crap on bbc1, most If not all of the expensive muppets on radio 1 could go. Get rid of the dinosaurs on motd who earn shocking amounts for very poor quality input. Streamline the service to meet the needs of those that subscribe.

No, how do you work out that’s a contradiction? Deciding whether or not it should exist as a public service is a completely different argument to whether it’s spending its budget wisely.

On your radio point, how do you propose restricting access to only those have paid for it? Or are you saying you could choose to pay for it but if you don’t you can access it anyway? As that can’t work either.

 

[meltonblue]

I disagree. I think a lot of people either side of the debate say it when it relates to broadcast news coverage where I think the BBC generally does ok (but not brilliant) but I think the criticism is only from one side when it comes to its online news/website, which is that steeped in identity/far-left/racial politics, it might as well be the Guardian's sister website. And as per your original point, I think it blurs the line between fact and opinion to achieve it.

I posted this the other day: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ar...his-years-harvest-was-too-hard-for-uk-workers

That's a prime example of a headline that blurs the line between fact and opinion. If you go on the BBC's website, pretty much every headline with a quote has the quotation marks at the start and end of the headline yet this has it on just two words so if you're scrolling through or not paying much attention, you can easily mistake it for fact. There's also the balance issue within the article where a counteropinion isn't given about the exploitative conditions, and I'm also not sure why the BBC would lead with this as a main headline because Fullfact have dismantled the argument that British workers are lazy so they shouldn't be giving centre-stage to opinions which are specious at best.

Are the British workforce lazy idlers? – Full Fact

After the Evening Standard leaked content of 'Britain Unchained', the magnum opus of five Tory MPs, there has been a media defence of the British labour force. But what do the statistics say?

fullfact.org

There's lots of other examples already given on this thread too (White privilege, Karens etc) where due impartiality has just gone out the window as has the line between fact and opinion.

Whether or not you think the BBC should be privatised or you'd like to see some changes to its funding model, I think it's pretty clear something has gone very badly wrong in the news department the past few years.

Why on earth would you post that example though, that’s a summary of a programme, not news and it’s absolutely not a headline. It isn’t even on the news section of the website, that’s either false equivalence gone utterly insane or you wanting the bbc to assume that they have to treat everyone as a complete idiot who can’t tell the difference between a synopsis and a news story.

 

[Pedestrian]

No, how do you work out that’s a contradiction? Deciding whether or not it should exist as a public service is a completely different argument to whether it’s spending its budget wisely.

On your radio point, how do you propose restricting access to only those have paid for it? Or are you saying you could choose to lay for it but if you don’t you can access it anyway? As that can’t work either.

Access isn’t restricted now to those who choose not to pay for it. What would be the difference?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Said it before and I'll say it again. As soon as they can adopt the tech then yeah great - those of us who pay get the TV, radio and on line content. Those who don't lose it. Go on a TV channel on whatever platform Sky or Freeview - blank screen - turn on your radio - dead air - go online - page not available. Go on DAVE to watch a repeat of HIGNFY or similar - blank screen...then yay the defund the BBC warriors have won. They don't want to pay coz they don't watch it ...mission accomplished.

 

[meltonblue]

Access isn’t restricted now to those who choose not to pay for it. What would be the difference?

You can’t split out radio and expect people to pay for it separately without it being internet only, that’s impossible

 

[Rascal]

You have no reasonable response so resort to being a muppet. Have a good evening.

You were not being serious so I took the extreme position just like you.

You cant see that because you dont want to see it.

 

[Rascal]

These two factors along with social media campaigns funded from alleged dubious sources will bring about the change imo.

They are not alleged, they are fact.

I have provided evidence in this thread. Its a cabal of extreme right wingers who see the BBC as a prime asset to be sold off to their mates for profit. That fucking idiot Grimes is involved and he is a puppet for nefarious interest.

They have used obvious propaganda tactics to discredit the BBC, which does have its faults, one of which is that it is massively underfunded. it also tries to hard to be unbiased which means the likes of that **** Farage are on the BBC far more than most politicians. That attempt to be unbiased has skewed the bias towards the extreme.

And nobody has answered this, who will provide the technical expertise that the British film and TV industry need when the BBC has gone. This country by dent of language has a huge advantage over the rest of the world and the BBC is world renowned and the soft power projected by the BBC is vital for the national interest.

People concentrating on content, totally miss the point of the BBC , i don't watch much of it to be honest but when it has gone it will never come back and the media companies that move in will have no interest in bringing through the next wave of technicians we need or have interest in projecting softpower.

As per fucking normal, the capitalist class sniff profit and they hate anything that they cannot profit from, that in itself should be a reason to keep it even it showed the Clangers on repeat 24/7

There is also local radio which free gives out vital information that people need in times of crisis. Floodwatch etc, these will become needed more and more. Why would a private company have any interest in doing this. There is no profit in public announcements.

And my point still stands I made in a flippant manner yesterday. People don't use it so don't want to fund it, I dont use nuclear weapons and i dont want to fund them, should i be allowed to opt out of funding them. I dont like the Queen can i opt out of funding the Queen. I dont use the M9 can i opt out of paying for its upkeep.

This is where extreme privatisation takes you, i will still be expected to fund things i dont like whilst the capitalists make money out of things i do like.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

They are not alleged, they are fact.

I have provided evidence in this thread. Its a cabal of extreme right wingers who see the BBC as a prime asset to be sold off to their mates for profit. That fucking idiot Grimes is involved and he is a puppet for nefarious interest.

They have used obvious propaganda tactics to discredit the BBC, which does have its faults, one of which is that it is massively underfunded. it also tries to hard to be unbiased which means the likes of that **** Farage are on the BBC far more than most politicians. That attempt to be unbiased has skewed the bias towards the extreme.

And nobody has answered this, who will provide the technical expertise that the British film and TV industry need when the BBC has gone. This country by dent of language has a huge advantage over the rest of the world and the BBC is world renowned and the soft power projected by the BBC is vital for the national interest.

People concentrating on content, totally miss the point of the BBC , i don't watch much of it to be honest but when it has gone it will never come back and the media companies that move in will have no interest in bringing through the next wave of technicians we need or have interest in projecting softpower.

As per fucking normal, the capitalist class sniff profit and they hate anything that they cannot profit from, that in itself should be a reason to keep it even it showed the Clangers on repeat 24/7

There is also local radio which free gives out vital information that people need in times of crisis. Floodwatch etc, these will become needed more and more. Why would a private company have any interest in doing this. There is no profit in public announcements.

And my point still stands I made in a flippant manner yesterday. People don't use it so don't want to fund it, I dont use nuclear weapons and i dont want to fund them, should i be allowed to opt out of funding them. I dont like the Queen can i opt out of funding the Queen. I dont use the M9 can i opt out of paying for its upkeep.

This is where extreme privatisation takes you, i will still be expected to fund things i dont like whilst the capitalists make money out of things i do like.

Agreed. The public service broadcaster keeps c.14 million households (as per 2019 OFCOM say around half of households currently subscribe to at least one service and the ONS say there are 27.8M households) from paying more than just the licence fee, so that is a big market for the likes of Netflix, Amazon etc. No wonder some quarters want the BBC defunded.

There is however a problem for the future because the younger population don't have any loyalty to the BBC. It will have to change in the near future one would feel. Not sure how it does that.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

F*ck Blue Peter

F*ck Dr Who

I'm sticking with netflix.

Dr Who, there’s a good example of go woke, go broke, viewing figures nosedived. Zoe Ball, loses 1 million listeners and gets a £1million pay rise, so a quid for everyone who binned it.
Only publicly funded organisations can operate like this, and it’s a big reason why those sacking it off are growing rapidly.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

It’s an outdated service that has for many been surpassed by alternatives. The debate should be around funding of the outdated service. There is no valid reason that I can think of why it shouldn’t be a subscription service, that then gives folk the option of paying or not. Debating the actual content would be a never ending argument. Some folk love it and others don’t. Those folk that appreciate it and want it to continue can subscribe, those who don’t enjoy it can opt out. Everyone’s happy.

Thereby lies the problem for them, make the subscription optional, and those that love it can pay it, if it’s so great, everyone will. They know, everyone knows, the truth is, they won’t

 

[Rascal]

Agreed. The public service broadcaster keeps c.14 million households (as per 2019 OFCOM say around half of households currently subscribe to at least one service and the ONS say there are 27.8M households) from paying more than just the licence fee, so that is a big market for the likes of Netflix, Amazon etc. No wonder some quarters want the BBC defunded.

There is however a problem for the future because the younger population don't have any loyalty to the BBC. It will have to change in the near future one would feel. Not sure how it does that.

I would scrap the licence fee and make sure the BBC is funded properly through general taxation so it could meet the needs of all the population

 

[Pedestrian]

I have no loyalty at all to the bbc. The rosey nostalgic image portrayed by some on here is laughable. It’s an outdated service that shouldn’t be forced upon folk. If people don’t use its content they should be free to ingest their media and spend there money where they want. ‘Flood watch’ hahaha. Maybe 30 years ago. Local radio keeping folk up to date with local matters. Maybe 30 years ago. The internet has taken over that function. Farage is on more then most politicians because boris is restricting access to his lot and if they just had the other parties on they’d be unbalanced politically. Although the bbc does employ Laura kunessberg which is like having access to a Tory politician on tap.
Some things the commercial sector do better. Netflix for content wipes the floor with the bbc from an entertainment aspect. News is much better digested from several different sources that way you can make your own mind up. Sports is non existent. The main radio station is absolute bollocks anyway but I agree there are some interesting and informative programs on some of the other stations. TBH it doesn’t really matter what any of us want because the funding model will need changing as more and more people opt out of paying.
Im not against the BBC I just think in the main it’s rubbish and I don’t agree that we should have to pay for a service we don’t use. I’m basically being made to pay for a bbc licence so I can watch Netflix, freeview and sky.

 

[Pedestrian]

Thereby lies the problem for them, make the subscription optional, and those that love it can pay it, if it’s so great, everyone will. They know, everyone knows, the truth is, they won’t

Ah but the comeback is ‘I don’t want to pay for nuclear submarines so why should I’ or it’s selfish for me to not pay even if I don’t use because others do.
A subscription model would bring it up to date and allow those who enjoy it to continue and those who don’t would be free to spend their hard earned money where they choose. It would also reduce the amount of criticism it receives.
There’s a few on here that are living in past years of elstree studios being the Mecca of film and tv. £86m on a new set for Eastenders??. Over £1b spent on bbc 1 alone and folk are saying it’s not properly funded. This years budget is just short of £5b and for that we get the embarrassment that is the bbc 1 program line up and Zoe ball.