The other channels would be free as well as freeview for those who couldn’t afford the potentially increased subscription cost. The fact that you admit the costs would increase and/or content would be streamlined if it became a subscription service tells me it’s not fit for purpose with the present funding model. I think you know a lot of folk would opt out based on the fact they don’t enjoy the content.
I think it once was a valuable public service provider of information, news and entertainment. I don’t think it is now. I’m not alone in that view. I certainly don’t think the news is independent. I personally don’t think it offers the safety blanket for the population that you seem to see. If I choose not to consume it because I don’t value it nor enjoy it that doesn’t make me selfish. It’s my personal choice.Again I’d argue it’s needed as much now as ever before, particularly from a news perspective given the blurring of the lines between opinion and facts that is so prevalent nowadays.
I think it once was a valuable public service provider of information, news and entertainment. I don’t think it is now. I’m not alone in that view. I certainly don’t think the news is independent. I personally don’t think it offers the safety blanket for the population that you seem to see. If I choose not to consume it because I don’t value it nor enjoy it that doesn’t make me selfish. It’s my personal choice.
I’m completely pro welfare state. In fact my entire career has been in public service. I don’t view the bbc as a necessity for the welfare of society. Therefore I don’t view it as part of the welfare structure. I don’t think it’s fair that a portion of the population are expected to pay for a service they don’t utilise just so another portion of the population can watch eastenders, some bailif crap or listen to zoe ball. I certainly don’t think that’s a selfish stance.No one said it did. You not considering that you’re paying for others to consume it too is.
Out of interest if you don’t think it’s independent, who do you think is influencing it?
I’m completely pro welfare state. In fact my entire career has been in public service. I don’t view the bbc as a necessity for the welfare of society. Therefore I don’t view it as part of the welfare structure. I don’t think it’s fair that a portion of the population are expected to pay for a service they don’t utilise just so another portion of the population can watch eastenders, some bailif crap or listen to zoe ball. I certainly don’t think that’s a selfish stance.
I think it’s influenced by the sitting government. The recent appointment of a conservative leaning DG seems to support this opinion.
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.We’ll have to agree to disagree on your first point as I do think it’s of huge value. The examples you’ve provided of it less so though as those are examples of things commercial broadcasters can do well enough anyway.
Again I’d argue it’s needed as much now as ever before, particularly from a news perspective given the blurring of the lines between opinion and facts that is so prevalent nowadays.
The problem is in order for those ‘moaning’ people to watch what they prefer they still have to pay the licence.They're never going to privatise the BBC, the ones who want it to be should stop moaning and just don't pay jeez