BBC licence fee

[Len Rum]

Just spoken with a friend who works at the Beeb who says that in light of the Bill going through first reading on Friday the BBC are war gaming the likely drop in income and the lie of the land going forward - the worst case scenario is they are being told

BBC1 AND 2 only
local BBC TV coverage to be cut back to strategically important bases only
Radio 1,2,3,and 4 only.
iplayer becoming separate subscription site
red button gone
BBC website reduced to very basic news coverage only
BBC News channel and Parliament channel merged
Local radio stations decimated - a few strategic ones to survive
sports coverage almost gone - no MOTD - Live limited to FA Cup final and Wimbledon plus Olympics - probably no World Cup coverage
Access to surviving TV and radio networks subscription only
No free access to anyone age or health no longer considered
No requirement to provide access to all over the UK so could cut transmission in awkward to get to and not profitable area's
Subscription fees to be set by the BBC as part of the agreement with Govt and they are to be free to adjust when and by how much they like

Thats the worst case and can be sliced and diced as appropriate depending on projected income but the lass I was on to says its devastating - she is senior in local BBC and faces total shutdown.

So when you get blank screens and the hiss of static on your radio folks remember to thanks Peter Bone and the Bone Heads as you decide what exactly you can afford to subscribe to and realise £145 a year was a Billy Bargain

Red (pink) meat for the egg and pineapple brigade though.

 

[bluethrunthru]

oopppss

 

[Gabriel]

Always struggled to understand why politicians would want to weaken one of the most important British cultural tools, especially at a time when the same politicians are espousing a path of internationalisation. They’ve also slashed the foreign aid budget and already understand that has been foolhardy.

 

[BlueMoonday]

I don't care how cheap it is, in a competitive market it is completely bizarre that a subscription service is imposed on the public gor little value. They've got away with it because the market wasn't competitive when the subscription was rolled out.

What adds to insult is the misuse of funds paid by the public and the lack of coverage in sport.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I don't care how cheap it is, in a competitive market it is completely bizarre that a subscription service is imposed on the public gor little value. They've got away with it because the market wasn't competitive when the subscription was rolled out.

What adds to insult is the misuse of funds paid by the public and the lack of coverage in sport.

Because its too expensive for the BBC - you subscribe to SKY Sports channels, SKY F1, BT Sport etc you get all the sports cover you want but it will cost you every month what you pay a year to the BBC - removing the license fee will mean everyone has a choice - pay lots more get lots less.

 

[Saddleworth2]

where is this left wing bias that they speak of? The only bias I see is them being the present Governments propaganda unit through Kuensberg and her chums.

 

[Len Rum]

Always struggled to understand why politicians would want to weaken one of the most important British cultural tools, especially at a time when the same politicians are espousing a path of internationalisation. They’ve also slashed the foreign aid budget and already understand that has been foolhardy.

That's because all they ( the Tories) care about is their own power and position.
They will trash the monarchy, the constitution, the BBC, whatever it takes.
They are not even patriots as they like to claim. Their power and privilege comes before that.
They are in truth right wing anarchists.

 

[Len Rum]

where is this left wing bias that they speak of? The only bias I see is them being the present Governments propaganda unit through Kuensberg and her chums.

There is no left wing bias.
In fact if anything the BBC is very timid and right of centre in it's mainstream news broadcasting.
The real reason is that the Tories want the BBC to be the Government broadcasting corporation ( without seeing the folly of this if they ever left Goverment).

 

[Gabriel]

That's because all they ( the Tories) care about is their own power and position.
They will trash the monarchy, the constitution, the BBC, whatever it takes.
They are not even patriots as they like to claim. Their power and privilege comes before that.
They are in truth right wing anarchists.

I don’t think all Conservatives act thus, but there are certainly some who, giddy on their new power, seem intent on attacking important institutions. If they had a plan to offer something different and better, I could try to understand, so in that sense anarchists does feel apt.

 

[Gabriel]

There is no left wing bias.
In fact if anything the BBC is very timid and right of centre in it's mainstream news broadcasting.
The real reason is that the Tories want the BBC to be the Government broadcasting corporation ( without seeing the folly of this if they ever left Goverment).

All parties in power see the BBC as overly critical. It was fascinating hearing Piers Morgan review the papers this morning on Sophie Raworth’s show. Irrespective of what you think of Morgan, or his views, he was critical in a way that no BBC employee could ever be. You could sense everyone in the room gasping and holding their breath.

 

[west didsblue]

All parties in power see the BBC as overly critical. It was fascinating hearing Piers Morgan review the papers this morning on Sophie Raworth’s show. Irrespective of what you think of Morgan, or his views, he was critical in a way that no BBC employee could ever be. You could sense everyone in the room gasping and holding their breath.

Talking of Sophie Raworth, she was doing her best to find equivalence between Starmer having a beer during a working dinner with Johnson attending a BYOB party in his garden. The BBC is a long way from leading any campaign to get rid of Johnson. Quite the opposite.
The threat to the licence fee is working.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The BBC has a dual personality.

There's the one we all admire, which produces quality programming that doesn't have to pander to advertising revenue. I remember an American friend watching Parkinson and marvelling at it, both in terms of the quality of the chat and the fact there wasn't an advertising break every five minutes. And there's stations like Radios 3, 4 and 6 Music, that also provide quality sound output.

Then there's the News side, which interprets 'balance' as two extremes and seems to prefer people shouting over each other rather than engaging in intelligent debate. And the Sports bit which admits it chases clicks and which accounts for its regular cock-sucking of the teams in red and trolling of us.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

oopppss

And so it begins.

It’s not Boris, it’s those ‘media elites’ you know, the ones who told you you were thick and racist if you voted for Brexit. It’s always been ‘them’ and they’re all working for the BBC!

 

[Gabriel]

Talking of Sophie Raworth, she was doing her best to find equivalence between Starmer having a beer during a working dinner with Johnson attending a BYOB party in his garden. The BBC is a long way from leading any campaign to get rid of Johnson. Quite the opposite.
The threat to the licence fee is working.

It has to walk the tightrope. Had she not asked that question, which had already been posed in the newspapers, then she would have been criticised by the Conservatives of double standards and going easy on Starmer. The BBC shouldn’t be leading any campaign to oust anyone, merely reporting what has happened, though I imagine there will be consternation amongst some Conservatives about Chris Mason’s synopsis of the week. So, if it’s annoying those on the left and those on the right, perhaps it’s serving its function.

 

[Gabriel]

The BBC has a dual personality.

There's the one we all admire, which produces quality programming that doesn't have to pander to advertising revenue. I remember an American friend watching Parkinson and marvelling at it, both in terms of the quality of the chat and the fact there wasn't an advertising break every five minutes. And there's stations like Radios 3, 4 and 6 Music, that also provide quality sound output.

Then there's the News side, which interprets 'balance' as two extremes and seems to prefer people shouting over each other rather than engaging in intelligent debate. And the Sports bit which admits it chases clicks and which accounts for its regular cock-sucking of the teams in red and trolling of us.

Agree with that, though the BBC outside of the U.K. is now heavily dependent on/plagued by advertising.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The BBC has a dual personality.

There's the one we all admire, which produces quality programming that doesn't have to pander to advertising revenue. I remember an American friend watching Parkinson and marvelling at it, both in terms of the quality of the chat and the fact there wasn't an advertising break every five minutes. And there's stations like Radios 3, 4 and 6 Music, that also provide quality sound output.

Then there's the News side, which interprets 'balance' as two extremes and seems to prefer people shouting over each other rather than engaging in intelligent debate. And the Sports bit which admits it chases clicks and which accounts for its regular cock-sucking of the teams in red and trolling of us.

When it comes to news its recent and public shift is to say in the name of equivalence two sides of an argument will get even weighting. So you can have a scientist on answering questions on the distance to the moon - the materials it is made of and its climate - then they will give equal time weight and respect to some loon who wants to tell us the moon is only a mile away is made of green cheese and has an atmosphere because otherwise the Clangers would be dead.

 

[west didsblue]

It has to walk the tightrope. Had she not asked that question, which had already been posed in the newspapers, then she would have been criticised by the Conservatives of double standards and going easy on Starmer. The BBC shouldn’t be leading any campaign to oust anyone, merely reporting what has happened, though I imagine there will be consternation amongst some Conservatives about Chris Mason’s synopsis of the week. So, if it’s annoying those on the left and those on the right, perhaps it’s serving its function.

Yes she had to ask the question which he answered. She didn’t need to keep asking it as the answer was perfectly satisfactory. She ignored his response on that and started asking hypothetical bollocks about the Gray report after Starmer had made it clear that its terms of reference were not to make judgments but just to spell out facts. Basically she was parroting Mail and Express talking points after he’d adequately responded to the questions.

 

[Gabriel]

Yes she had to ask the question which he answered. She didn’t need to keep asking it as the answer was perfectly satisfactory. She ignored his response on that and started asking hypothetical bollocks about the Gray report after Starmer had made it clear that its terms of reference were not to make judgments but just to spell out facts. Basically she was parroting Mail and Express talking points after he’d adequately responded to the questions.

She arguably did the same with Oliver Dowden. He played the straight bat to everything but she kept bowling the same delivery. She appears timid and looks like someone trying not to offend so as to be given the position full time.

It’s a bit of an indictment of the state of political interviewing in the UK that neither Morgan nor Neil are employable by the BBC. I’m perfectly capable of dividing their personal politics from their interviewing technique, yet both would be capable of giving Davey, Johnson, Starmer, Sturgeon et al.a tougher ride than Marr or Raworth. When the electorate allow their politicians to evade a proper grilling (and that includes shunning Radio 4), they end up with a culture of insipid and repetitive questioning, and that’s unhealthy for the country’s democracy.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

It might well have a cultural bias and be over represented by younger people and minorities but I don’t see that as a particularly bad thing. What I see as a bad thing is the Government of the day deciding what the BBC should broadcast. They went for Channel 4 because they didn’t approve of how they reported events. Now they’re after the BBC for the same without seemingly wondering if it’s the events themselves that should be questioned and not their reporting!

As for bias, the BBC Director General Tim Davie is a former Chair of Hammersmith & Fulham Conservative Association who stood to be a Tory councillor BBC Chairman Richard Sharp is a former advisor to Boris Johnson as London Mayor, and to Rishi Sunak as Chancellor. He donated £400k to the Tories.
This morning Rayworth had Piers Morgan and someone from the spectator discussing the DM ‘left wing bias’ article.

Laura Kuenessberg has activity promoted the election of a conservative government, made up a story about; Corbin saying police should never use firearms, a ‘Labour member had punched a Conservative advisor’ tweeted like fury defending Cummings over the Barnard Castle stuff.

Nick Robinson, former President of OU young conservatives group, a founder of the Macclesfield young conservatives, and chair of the national young conservatives. And he’s a rag……

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

When it comes to news its recent and public shift is to say in the name of equivalence two sides of an argument will get even weighting. So you can have a scientist on answering questions on the distance to the moon - the materials it is made of and its climate - then they will give equal time weight and respect to some loon who wants to tell us the moon is only a mile away is made of green cheese and has an atmosphere because otherwise the Clangers would be dead.

That's a slight exaggeration but the principle is 100% correct. I stopped listening to 5 Live about 18 months ago as I was already growing weary of their constant obsession with Brexit, then Covid. Valid news items certainly but not the 24 hours a day they seemed to devote to them.

Then I was listening one afternoon and they were discussing some aspect of government economic policy. I've got an Economics degree & it's a subject I'm still interested in so I listened and they had two people discussing whatever it was. One was Yanis Varoufakis, the left-wing economist and former Greek Finance Minister and the other was from the Cato Institute, which is a Koch funded body. For those who don't know, the Koch brothers are very wealthy US ultra-conservatives who fund many like-minded think-tanks and other organisations. Both had an immutable ideological vew on the subject, on the extreme edge of the spectrum of debate. I'm always happy to listen to opposing views, as there can rarely be one single view on a subject, but this was two diametrically opposed extremes where there was no common ground or meeting in the middle.

I learned nothing from the debate other than the fact that these were the two most extreme positions. I complained that this wasn't "balance" but, as usual, the complaint fell on deaf BBC ears. So 5 Live got turned off and I don't miss it.