At a family get together this weekend, I found out that out of 6 people I am the only one paying for a television license. The other 5 in the room all watch or listen to the BBC legally but do not need a television license.
2 only watch television on catch up on their lap tops, 2 are over 75 and the other is registered blind, does not have a telly but listens to the radio. Add to this my cousin who lives in central Europe who watches and listens to the BBC it makes me wonder if the BBC (regardless of any current scandals that are raging) is fit for purpose.
First of all, call it what you like, the license is a television tax. You can’t opt out of the BBC if you own a television! So in my mind it is a tax.
Second, we are always being told that the BBC is excellent quality and good value for money! How do we know this? There is no competition to the BBC, it does not have to look for outside funding, it has a charter but what I would call the charter quota seems to be available pretty much exclusively on either radio 4 and BBC4.
Thirdly, in an age of enlightenment, do we actually need a state broadcaster? It smacks me a bit of Orwell’s 1984! Do we need the state to prescribe what we watch, how we get our news and what the state feels is suitable entertainment. The argument for not dropping radio 6 was “it is a platform for new talent that would not get a chance otherwise” so did Elvis do a session for radio 6, where the Beatles ever indebted to radio 6? No, talent is talent! If your good enough and put in the effort, you will make it.
When television went digital, an opportunity was missed. We could have had to “opt in” to the BBC. Personally I would have. Then the license fee would be just that! You pay, you watch. When the analogue radio signal is turned off, if you want to listen to the radio, you pay. If you want to access the BBC via lap top, mobile phone, whatever, you pay. Concessions to be made for the elderly and infirm from the exchequer but for the rump of the country, you watch or listen, you pay. That way we get to decide if the BBC is top quality and good valve for money, with our subscription.
Can I apologise for my poor English!I have titled this thread as a question then offered my point of view as if to say "agree or disagree"
This was not my intention. My intention was to offer the subject as a discussion piece.
And so you have herts.
I don't see a need for an apology; you've acted quite correctly IMHO by constructing the thread the way you have and then offering your take on it.
:thumbup:
But no, the BBC is not fit for purpose and the extortion of the masses in a tax by any other name is disgraceful.
The Charter should be revoked, Lord Patten put out to grass and the BBC should fight for its funding in exactly the same way that all the other operators do - on a level playing field.
Is the British Broadcasting Corporation fit for purpose?
Absolutely, at 40+ pence a day I'd say it represents excellent value for money, no other Broadcaster worldwide that I've experienced comes close to the BBC and whilst the BBC remains ad free (for it's UK only users) then I'm happy to pay the subscription/tax name it what you will.
The news feeds are excellent, the quality of journalism for the most part excellent, the various BBC websites are fantastic with something for all ages, BBC Drama has some excellent productions, it's sports coverage is pretty good and on and on it goes.
I'm not interested in the Politics of the whys and what if's of the BBC, there will always be some moaning, whiny people dissatisfied with the BBC, it's content, it's management or the hidden tax the licence fee supposedly is ...their opinions matter not, Long Live The BBC!
only thing i use the bbc for is radio and the news.
but if i had the choice of paying the wages of the likes of saville and them massive payoffs then i would say no.
all them sickos links to sex crimes had one thing in common. they worked for the bbc.
and when you think people go to prison for not paying the tv on ffs.
prisons are overcrowded and not paying is hardly the crime of the century is it?
surely the technology is in place so that those who subscribe to something like sky can have all bbc channels blocked and if so why should they then pay a second fee to a corp which wastes millions.
the only thing i would say i have seen on the bbc in recent years which i thought was worth while are the nature programmes. apart from that its all neverenders rubbish.
One thing that has never been satisfactorily explained to me is why I must fund the BBC. I can pay for sky/virgin/whatever if I want to access their services and accept that the money I send their way will in one way or another end up boosting their profits. The key thing is that I have a choice.
With the BBC I have no choice whatsoever, I have to pay money by law to a profit making organisation, before I can even consider the option of paying for sky etc.
The situation is a joke. If you want to watch any TV in this country you have to pay the BBC. Maybe the monopolies commission should get involved!
only thing tv is now is a collection of singing, band, cooking and other reality rubbish about housewives who are completely above their station.
blasted by pop videos which have sexual overtones and guns waving about in them you see why we have a society which think its fashionable to wear pants hanging over the top of trousers and girls acting like whores just to be in the 'gang' and liked.
tv washes the brain and i shudder when i see parents dumping the kids in front of the television or a dvd just because they want a break from parenting.
but back on track. the bbc already makes enough money in other areas so let it run free and fund itself.
I have wondered for years why we have to pay for the BBC channels when most of us probably have a Sky subscription, or freeview, a pc for the catch up and iplayer programmes, it feels like you are paying twice and for what?
I hear what you are saying about the documentaries as I think no one makes them like the BBC, the wildlife ones are always stunningly photographed and worth watching, and yes it is very nice to be able to sit through a programme without a break every 15 minutes, but is it worth the money you shell out for it?
No one like change, it doesn`t feel very comfortable for most of us but do we keep the BBC the way it is because she is dear old Aunty Beeb?
I have wondered for years why we have to pay for the BBC channels when most of us probably have a Sky subscription, or freeview, a pc for the catch up and iplayer programmes, it feels like you are paying twice and for what?
I hear what you are saying about the documentaries as I think no one makes them like the BBC, the wildlife ones are always stunningly photographed and worth watching, and yes it is very nice to be able to sit through a programme without a break every 15 minutes, but is it worth the money you shell out for it?
No one like change, it doesn`t feel very comfortable for most of us but do we keep the BBC the way it is because she is dear old Aunty Beeb?
SKY HD is reasonable, but over the years cut back on some of the channels/subscription as found that never watched them.
Whilst have a Freeview built in to the current sets, just never watched them as easier to get the extra channels via the SKY box.
However for news, current affairs, most drama (not costume), natural world, etc. find ourselves watching the Beeb from amongst the traditional terrestrial channels.
Just taking them as a group, look at what they are up against. Most of the ITV output is just not interesting, same for Five and a big chunk of 4, and if/when we do watch anything we'd sooner watch it rather than sit through adverts, program sponsor adverts, etc. so it's record it and fast forward those, or use the catchup/on-demand service (good broadband here) as these are usually advert free.
Happy with the Levy/Charter, as at least shows committment to the Public Service aspect of their output. For the others read a declining advertising revenue and shows with 'tie-ins'.
Away from the 'box in the corner' we have Radio, with the R4 Media Show enlightening, especially earlier this week with the section about TV programme commissioning basically being a monopoly within the advertised TV world. So rather than people making programmes that might be good and interesting, unless they accept seeingly punitive conditions, loss of a fair bit of control, then programme makers quite often don't even get to make the programmes in the first place unless the advertising middlemen agree. Result even less choice and variety in content.
As for radio generally, theres a lot out there and find that no other broadcaster has the breadth, variety or scope in their output that tbe BBC does.
Long may that continue.
As for the management of the BBC, what can you say other than it needs sorting out as does the Trust under Patten. Time for a change there.
