Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
coppice said:
...A couple of quid a week for 6 radio channels and 4 TV channels , which many million of us actually rather like isn't too much of a burden for you is it ?
My eldest (4) likes to read magazines that "only" cost a fiver a week. If you wouldn't mind sending me 2 quid each week to subsidise our entertainment preferences it would be good. It's not much is it.Crap arguments are crap.
TV is not an essential service. The only part of it that might be regarded that way are public service type announcements. And they go out on non-BBC channels too.
I'm glad you like everything the BBC churns out and that you think it's good value. I like some of it too (less and less as time goes on, but I guess there's 3-4hrs a week that I watch/listen to), but if it disappeared tomorrow my life would be none the worse for it. Would I notice the £145.50 saved each year? Not really. But if given a choice to spend it on something else enjoyable (say a magazine a month each for my two boys) would that be preferable? Yes thanks, it would.
The BBC is an anachronism, and becoming more and more so as time goes on.
Murph7355 said:
My eldest (4) likes to read magazines that "only" cost a fiver a week. If you wouldn't mind sending me 2 quid each week to subsidise our entertainment preferences it would be good. It's not much is it.
Crap arguments are crap.
TV is not an essential service. The only part of it that might be regarded that way are public service type announcements. And they go out on non-BBC channels too.
I'm glad you like everything the BBC churns out and that you think it's good value. I like some of it too (less and less as time goes on, but I guess there's 3-4hrs a week that I watch/listen to), but if it disappeared tomorrow my life would be none the worse for it. Would I notice the £145.50 saved each year? Not really. But if given a choice to spend it on something else enjoyable (say a magazine a month each for my two boys) would that be preferable? Yes thanks, it would.
The BBC is an anachronism, and becoming more and more so as time goes on.
You must surely be aware that you pay a fee to receive broadcast TV, and not to pay for the BBC? The BBC is funded out of the licence fee. Most (almost all) Western countries charge a licence fee, some much more than ours does, few, if any, get a service as comprehensive as the BBC in return. If the BBC was disbanded or forced to self-fund, do you think the 'tax' would be dropped?Crap arguments are crap.
TV is not an essential service. The only part of it that might be regarded that way are public service type announcements. And they go out on non-BBC channels too.
I'm glad you like everything the BBC churns out and that you think it's good value. I like some of it too (less and less as time goes on, but I guess there's 3-4hrs a week that I watch/listen to), but if it disappeared tomorrow my life would be none the worse for it. Would I notice the £145.50 saved each year? Not really. But if given a choice to spend it on something else enjoyable (say a magazine a month each for my two boys) would that be preferable? Yes thanks, it would.
The BBC is an anachronism, and becoming more and more so as time goes on.
TTwiggy said:
If the BBC was disbanded or forced to self-fund, do you think the 'tax' would be dropped?
Being extremely sceptical of anything government run, the answer is probably not. However, I utterly resent paying for the BBC in its current form (you can argue that the tax is for 'receiving' if you like...). Furthermore, the fact that it is a criminal offence to view, but not pay, is simply outrageous IMO.I have heard my parent's generation refer to the BBC as 'the envy of the world'; perhaps it was in times of yore, but today, in 2017, I beg to differ....
Biker 1 said:
TTwiggy said:
If the BBC was disbanded or forced to self-fund, do you think the 'tax' would be dropped?
Being extremely sceptical of anything government run, the answer is probably not. However, I utterly resent paying for the BBC in its current form (you can argue that the tax is for 'receiving' if you like...). Furthermore, the fact that it is a criminal offence to view, but not pay, is simply outrageous IMO.I have heard my parent's generation refer to the BBC as 'the envy of the world'; perhaps it was in times of yore, but today, in 2017, I beg to differ....
But in terms of what you get from the BBC, for what it costs per year/month/week, I can't see how it's not at least 'decent' value for money. Even with the full Sky package (due to my job), I find that the BBC consistently provides the bulk of programming that I watch (and no, I don't mean Strictly!).
For me the difference between supporting the BBC and not doing so (very Anti since Brexit) is the "Current Affairs" output. This will always be subjective I agree.
So
Why not separate the News Channel and the other entertainment channels. 24 hour news and the obvious bias that it will levied at it would then be removed from any argument. That output has always been a world leader, the News output has not for years.
So
Why not separate the News Channel and the other entertainment channels. 24 hour news and the obvious bias that it will levied at it would then be removed from any argument. That output has always been a world leader, the News output has not for years.
Edited by Stickyfinger on Monday 30th January 16:08
TTwiggy said:
I will admit to being a bit confused by this. The 'political bias' argument makes sense to me. I firmly believe it's largely down to one's own bias, but I can concede the view that the BBC could be more impartial (though I always argue that it could never satisfy everyone in terms of being entirely impartial).
But in terms of what you get from the BBC, for what it costs per year/month/week, I can't see how it's not at least 'decent' value for money. Even with the full Sky package (due to my job), I find that the BBC consistently provides the bulk of programming that I watch (and no, I don't mean Strictly!).
Which is great for you. Less so for those whose bulk of programming is not provided by the BBC (my family, for example).But in terms of what you get from the BBC, for what it costs per year/month/week, I can't see how it's not at least 'decent' value for money. Even with the full Sky package (due to my job), I find that the BBC consistently provides the bulk of programming that I watch (and no, I don't mean Strictly!).
Yes, I am aware that technically the license fee is a license to receive. And as per the other poster I doubt it would be dropped. However...don't all the proceeds go to the BBC? Save, perhaps, for the amount of money that is used to attempt to catch evaders?
It would seem far more sensible from my perspective for the government to charge commercial broadcasters the airwaves fees and to cast the BBC adrift. Let people genuinely choose what they want to watch. The arguments about quality of programming are subjective (and IMO very easy to argue against).
Thankfully, for those who get most of their viewing through the BBC, this will never happen. The BBC seems second only to the NHS in terms of "national treasure" status. And frankly I'll swallow the £145.50 for now as there are far more pressing issues for everyone to be dealing with. The BBC will definitively change over time anyway. They people consume content is changing rapidly and the BBC is unable to keep up IMO.
TTwiggy said:
I will admit to being a bit confused by this. The 'political bias' argument makes sense to me. I firmly believe it's largely down to one's own bias, but I can concede the view that the BBC could be more impartial (though I always argue that it could never satisfy everyone in terms of being entirely impartial).
But in terms of what you get from the BBC, for what it costs per year/month/week, I can't see how it's not at least 'decent' value for money. Even with the full Sky package (due to my job), I find that the BBC consistently provides the bulk of programming that I watch (and no, I don't mean Strictly!).
I get almost fBut in terms of what you get from the BBC, for what it costs per year/month/week, I can't see how it's not at least 'decent' value for money. Even with the full Sky package (due to my job), I find that the BBC consistently provides the bulk of programming that I watch (and no, I don't mean Strictly!).
k all from the BBC - in fact the opposite! Sick & tired of work colleagues who appear to be brainwashed by R4 Today programme on their commute to work, followed by Question Time etc later, regurgitating the bias verbatim, because they have been convinced the BBC is the news.....If I didn't have to pay this tax, I could use the cash saved for other TV services. I think the only things I watch on BBC are MOTD, some David Attenborough shows, err..... can't really think of any others.Just get Feesat, BT sport, Now TV, Youtube, or whatever. I guess I wouldn't mind so much if the BEEB was truly impartial; I resent propping up this bulls
t...boxxob said:
Stickyfinger said:
For me the difference between supporting the BBC and not doing so (very Anti since Brexit) is the "Current Affairs" output. This will always be subjective I agree.
So
Why not separate the News Channel and the other entertainment channels. 24 hour news and the obvious bias that it will levied at it would then be removed from any argument. That output has always been a world leader, the News output has not for years.
So
Why not separate the News Channel and the other entertainment channels. 24 hour news and the obvious bias that it will levied at it would then be removed from any argument. That output has always been a world leader, the News output has not for years.
Edited by Stickyfinger on Monday 30th January 16:08
Which news channels and news output are you talking about? The BBC has many, duplicating news reporting to quite ridiculous sub-divided levels: tv/online/radio/uk-countries/regional output. The strongest bias the BBC holds is to itself in the form of an abused funding model and market position, waste, duplication, and life-jobs for all the middle management and overpaid celebrities.
Biker 1 said:
I get almost fk all from the BBC - in fact the opposite! Sick & tired of work colleagues who appear to be brainwashed by R4 Today programme on their commute to work, followed by Question Time etc later, regurgitating the bias verbatim, because they have been convinced the BBC is the news.....
If I didn't have to pay this tax, I could use the cash saved for other TV services. I think the only things I watch on BBC are MOTD, some David Attenborough shows, err..... can't really think of any others.Just get Feesat, BT sport, Now TV, Youtube, or whatever. I guess I wouldn't mind so much if the BEEB was truly impartial; I resent propping up this bullst...
Who is going to pay for things that you watch on BBC? Think of it as £12 pm for MOTD and DA 'shows'. Ignore bits that don't conform to your particular prejudices. k all from the BBC - in fact the opposite! Sick & tired of work colleagues who appear to be brainwashed by R4 Today programme on their commute to work, followed by Question Time etc later, regurgitating the bias verbatim, because they have been convinced the BBC is the news.....If I didn't have to pay this tax, I could use the cash saved for other TV services. I think the only things I watch on BBC are MOTD, some David Attenborough shows, err..... can't really think of any others.Just get Feesat, BT sport, Now TV, Youtube, or whatever. I guess I wouldn't mind so much if the BEEB was truly impartial; I resent propping up this bulls
t...For £12 a month? Good luck with that. There are fantastic programmes that BBC provides, some in colaboration with OU, I personally know two people who after seeing the programmes went to OU, got qualification and now doing much better jobs as a result, obviously paying more taxes.
It's a pack of cigarettes a month. It's a joke to whine about it. +
It's a pack of cigarettes a month. It's a joke to whine about it. +
jjlynn27 said:
For £12 a month? Good luck with that. There are fantastic programmes that BBC provides, some in colaboration with OU, I personally know two people who after seeing the programmes went to OU, got qualification and now doing much better jobs as a result, obviously paying more taxes.
It's a pack of cigarettes a month. It's a joke to whine about it. +
no it isn't.It's a pack of cigarettes a month. It's a joke to whine about it. +
I don't watch any BBC programs. ever. If I want to watch a film, I pay for just that film. If your friends want to watch that OU program, then they should pay for just that programme.
jjlynn27 said:
...
It's a pack of cigarettes a month. It's a joke to whine about it. +
Everything is just a couple of quid a month. Every govt service can be boiled down to that level. But the pounds all add up (I'm assuming you're not Gordon Brown).It's a pack of cigarettes a month. It's a joke to whine about it. +
However, the cost of it is irrelevant to a point. It is not an essential public service. It therefore shouldn't be funded as one.
(I don't smoke btw...thankfully I'm not asked to subsidise your cigs if you do. Which I'm sure you would agree would be ridiculous if it did happen).
Murph7355 said:
jjlynn27 said:
...
It's a pack of cigarettes a month. It's a joke to whine about it. +
Everything is just a couple of quid a month. Every govt service can be boiled down to that level. But the pounds all add up (I'm assuming you're not Gordon Brown).It's a pack of cigarettes a month. It's a joke to whine about it. +
However, the cost of it is irrelevant to a point. It is not an essential public service. It therefore shouldn't be funded as one.
(I don't smoke btw...thankfully I'm not asked to subsidise your cigs if you do. Which I'm sure you would agree would be ridiculous if it did happen).
At any rate, people moan about it 'cause lefties', without stopping for a second and realize that it's mostly their own bias inflicted by Infowars, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.
I personally feel that it's fantastic value for money compared to most 'govt services' and it's such a minuscule amount that doesn't warrant getting upset about.
jjlynn27 said:
It's not relevant if I'm GB or not. BBC does some exceptional programming that wouldn't exist in a world where 5mil people will watch some z list celebs trying to dance, and about 100k people will watch DA programme. The proportion of money is also spent on bb roll-out. As is for World Service. As we are not trying to be a global trading nation again, I'd imagine that service is essential.
At any rate, people moan about it 'cause lefties', without stopping for a second and realize that it's mostly their own bias inflicted by Infowars, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.
I personally feel that it's fantastic value for money compared to most 'govt services' and it's such a minuscule amount that doesn't warrant getting upset about.
Name the exceptional world leading BBC programmes being produced by the News/Political departments.At any rate, people moan about it 'cause lefties', without stopping for a second and realize that it's mostly their own bias inflicted by Infowars, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.
I personally feel that it's fantastic value for money compared to most 'govt services' and it's such a minuscule amount that doesn't warrant getting upset about.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff