BBC licence fee

Blue Hefner said:
1) We fund schools as glorifed day care so the adults can go out to the factories, offices to make money to pay tax. Seen as though more people are working from home or unfortunaley unemployed as a result of the pandemic and we are looking to save money let's shut some schools and let the parents educate their own kids rather than the state/teachers. Teachers are only lazy union puppets anyway who only work 6 hours a day.....

2)I'm not sure about that. BBC have done groundbreaking documentary/news series that are available to everyone in the county, because we all chip-in. I don't have Netfix, I jump on someone elses Sky-Go so my access to media is very limited. As is plently of people's who don't have good enough broadband to stream or just simply can't afford it. I'd consider free access to recipes, kids TV etc and education essential in this day and age

The result of 'stripping back' would be a reduced and poor service which then could easily to be sold to the public as a waste of money so best to get rid. Didn't they do the same with British Rail??
Click to expand...

The news and documentaries are what I'd have them concentrate on (and if the professionalism and quality were undeniable trying to sell it as a waste would be a waste of time itself - infact right now alot of the arguments for keeping it as it is are the nature docs) but whatever one deems to be the important stuff there's so much bloat there and half the online stuff could go tomorrow and no-one would notice. Regardless, I think it could be funded in a better way.
 
BBC is a unique public organisation.

The licence fee is an incredible amount of value for money.


I'm impressed by what the new DG has said and hope he follows through.
 
mat said:
BBC is a unique public organisation.

The licence fee is incredible amount of value for money.


I'm impressed by what the new DG has said and hope he follows through.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I get many of the arguments for defunding / privatisation, but frankly concerned when I see who it is that's making them.
 
Silva_Spell said:
Your main point seemed to be that you thought it was worth the money

We fund things like schools via the state because not everyone could afford to pay. This isn't true for media

Personally, I don't think the BBC should be straight up privatised or abolished but it needs stripping right down to the important stuff (news and docs) and has to become more neutral, with diversity of thought introduced to its employment ranks, not just superficial diversity.
The danger of getting rid of it is it would fragment society even further. I'd like to see us fund it in other ways tho (lottery?)
Click to expand...


It is true for the media
A well informed public is the basis for democracy.
As soon as the news costs money or is owned by someone and therefore biased to their views, democracy is fucked.

just look at the USA
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
pirate said:
It is true for the media
A well informed public is the basis for democracy.
As soon as the news costs money or is owned by someone and therefore biased to their views, democracy is fucked.

just look at the USA
Click to expand...

The BBC has its biases too
 
Silva_Spell said:
That remains to be seen. I hope you're right, it has taken such a campaign to even get slight hints of change
Click to expand...


thats the way of democracy.

The alternative is no control at all and the richest people controlling the bias and pushing their objectives.
I would argue a slow to change broadcaster is better than broadcasters controlled by individuals pushing their own agendas. That way fake news and the shit storm that is the USA currently
 
I'm also impressed by the new DG but I still think the BBC's financing model is outdated and I'm glad he's looking at new financing options too.
 
Fame Monster said:
I'm also impressed by the new DG but I still think the BBC's financing model is outdated and I'm glad he's looking at new financing options too.
Click to expand...
He’s looked at the books and seen how much hush money is still paid out to protect nonces...
 
ganganvince said:
Would the private sector pay these rates?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-54160658
Click to expand...

I don't know what the going-rate is in the private sector but some of them salaries are ridiculous.

Does anyone watch MOTD because of Gary Lineker or like me, do they tune in to watch the football?

They could employ a local journalist on £22-23k per annum for every local authority in the UK if they got rid of the deadwood on that rich-list.
 
hugh Edwards gets £465000 for a part time job reading the news on an autocue. Does it matter who reads the news. Those in the bbc have completly lost touch with reality.
 
Fame Monster said:
I don't know what the going-rate is in the private sector but some of them salaries are ridiculous.

Does anyone watch MOTD because of Gary Lineker or like me, do they tune in to watch the football?

They could employ a local journalist on £22-23k per annum for every local authority in the UK if they got rid of the deadwood on that rich-list.
Click to expand...

so you don't know what SKY or BT pay but you are angry....ok. Do you think the local journalist - who if they are a local ITV station journo are on way more than £23k pa - would do as good a job?
 
bluethrunthru said:
so you don't know what SKY or BT pay but you are angry....ok. Do you think the local journalist - who if they are a local ITV station journo are on way more than £23k pa - would do as good a job?
Click to expand...

Tbh, I'm on more about the Local Democracy Service https://www.bbc.com/lnp/ldrs where a lot of journalists earn in the low £20k. I think this would be a better use of BBC money than paying someone like Lineker £1.7M a year irrespective of what hed get at Sky Sports or BT.
 
bluethrunthru said:
so you don't know what SKY or BT pay but you are angry....ok. Do you think the local journalist - who if they are a local ITV station journo are on way more than £23k pa - would do as good a job?
Click to expand...
Don't care what Sky or BT pay as we do not fund them as they have a business model that suits their income. Unlike the BBC who are funded by taxes from ordinary folk who can barely afford the tax, and yet Lineker can post shit on your favourite media forum mocking those very same poor tax payers. You disappoint me I was under the illusion from other threads that you care socially about normal folk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top