BBC to axe 1000 jobs. Wheels are comming off....
Discussion
chris watton said:
AJL308 said:
Derek Smith said:
Without the BBC life in the UK will be much the poorer. BBC 4 is brilliant.
A valid point. The fee is as regressive as it gets, too - you pay the same whether you have £6k per year income or £600k! What's the difference between that and the Poll Tax?
It seems (some on the) the left love it, and they always seem to expect others to pay for what they like, no matter what.
If it is as great as some suggest, as others have said countless times before, the BBC would have no issues if it were subscription based, thus having a level playing field for all broadcasters.
I would not subscribe, as it have very little to offer us, but am sure plenty of others would.
Eric Mc said:
And I watch and listen to BBC content and my life is a lot richer for it.
I do think the BBC is a bit special and its willful destruction by successive governments is going to be marked as a great loss to the country - when it eventually does go.
Again, I cannot agree regarding it a great loss. Perhaps that statement would have been true a couple of decades ago, but now, I really don't think so.I do think the BBC is a bit special and its willful destruction by successive governments is going to be marked as a great loss to the country - when it eventually does go.
turbobloke said:
Don't be too concerned, when the licence fee is abolished you can always use the money saved to subscribe to what's left of the BBC, and the BBC is way to the left 
The money saved is so little it would only allow me a tiny amount of access to any subscription channels - that's for sure.AJL308 said:
A valid point. Why is BBC 4 actually needed though? Surely the job it is doing is what BBC 2 is supposed to be for? Likewise, BBC 3 is a very much down-market BBC 1 and has almost no reason to exist, in my opinion. All this duplication is unnecessary and seems to exist for the purpose of creating jobs.
What the BBC needs is a channel more akin to Sky Arts as the BBC seems to be lacking in something of that nature.
Agreed. What the BBC needs is a channel more akin to Sky Arts as the BBC seems to be lacking in something of that nature.
Scrap BBC 3&4, along with half the radio stations.
Drop the expensive sports rights.
Have BBC 1, 2 + Arts
Respond to the youth market and add streaming (as Canada have IIRC).
AJL308 said:
chris watton said:
AJL308 said:
Derek Smith said:
Without the BBC life in the UK will be much the poorer. BBC 4 is brilliant.
A valid point. The fee is as regressive as it gets, too - you pay the same whether you have £6k per year income or £600k! What's the difference between that and the Poll Tax?
It seems (some on the) the left love it, and they always seem to expect others to pay for what they like, no matter what.
If it is as great as some suggest, as others have said countless times before, the BBC would have no issues if it were subscription based, thus having a level playing field for all broadcasters.
I would not subscribe, as it have very little to offer us, but am sure plenty of others would.
chris watton said:
Eric Mc said:
And I watch and listen to BBC content and my life is a lot richer for it.
I do think the BBC is a bit special and its willful destruction by successive governments is going to be marked as a great loss to the country - when it eventually does go.
Again, I cannot agree regarding it a great loss. Perhaps that statement would have been true a couple of decades ago, but now, I really don't think so.I do think the BBC is a bit special and its willful destruction by successive governments is going to be marked as a great loss to the country - when it eventually does go.
No different to 10,20 or 30 years ago.
On balance, it produces enough good content to keep me watching. I avoid the dross.
Other channels have a similar mix but on the whole at the BBC the balance of good compared to dross is better than on most commercial TV.
TTwiggy said:
I don't have kids in school, have never called the police, fire brigade or an ambulance. I live in a development with its own refuse collection I have also never been to hospital. I pay for all these things though.
Absurd analogy .The BBC is not an essential service, its a media company, like dozens of others. Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Thursday 2nd July 15:37
Derek Smith said:
The BBC was accused of having right-wing bias, right up until the late 80s. Then we we had Murdoch's demands. Since then, attacking the BBC has been a political must from all parties. If any party wants the support of the Murdoch press it has to comply with what was stated in the McTaggart lectures by Murdoch's mini-me. It was nothing more than a list of what Murdoch wanted for his support.
Major resisted the demands and all of a sudden Murdoch jumped on the labour band-wagon. He stayed with them until he realised they were not going to win an election and jumped ship. When the tories didn't win the election, he was the first visitor to #10 and one of its most frequent.
The BBC has become the whipping boy of the right wing (at the moment).
The BBC is a gem. It produces some of the best TV programmes in the world. Ignore the supposed massive left wing bias, although, of course, it is one of the most heavily controlled TV outlets in Europe. Now we have its content controlled by May, so that's fully independence gone.
Without the BBC life in the UK will be much the poorer. BBC 4 is brilliant.
Politicians who want Cameron's job moan about the BBC content and funding methods, as do the silly wing of the tories. As would Blair's lot is they were still in because that aspect was controlled by Murdoch.
Let's look at the BBC going private. Where do you think the advertising would come from? There's only so much around.
Since 1987, the BBC has been under attack. It is a miracle it has lasted this long.
It's output has been tremendous. I have umpteen CDs of the programmes they produce and don't want to lose it just because Cameron wants the support of Sky. Times and a red top.
Read through the Radio Times and compare look at the programmes it produces. All for a few quid a week. A bargain.
If you want to dance to Murdoch's tune, then you can by not paying the charge. But think what you will be missing.
Since the BBC became the victim of politics, it has lost the Olympics and half of F1. All due to politics.
I have a number of American friends who just enthuse about the BBC. Their treat after the long journey over.
Think what you will lose before rejoicing.
Fox News anyone? My lad has a friend who emigrated to Oz and he says he'd love the place if it had 'decent', ie BBC, television. Out there it is all controlled by Murdoch.
At last, some sanity.Major resisted the demands and all of a sudden Murdoch jumped on the labour band-wagon. He stayed with them until he realised they were not going to win an election and jumped ship. When the tories didn't win the election, he was the first visitor to #10 and one of its most frequent.
The BBC has become the whipping boy of the right wing (at the moment).
The BBC is a gem. It produces some of the best TV programmes in the world. Ignore the supposed massive left wing bias, although, of course, it is one of the most heavily controlled TV outlets in Europe. Now we have its content controlled by May, so that's fully independence gone.
Without the BBC life in the UK will be much the poorer. BBC 4 is brilliant.
Politicians who want Cameron's job moan about the BBC content and funding methods, as do the silly wing of the tories. As would Blair's lot is they were still in because that aspect was controlled by Murdoch.
Let's look at the BBC going private. Where do you think the advertising would come from? There's only so much around.
Since 1987, the BBC has been under attack. It is a miracle it has lasted this long.
It's output has been tremendous. I have umpteen CDs of the programmes they produce and don't want to lose it just because Cameron wants the support of Sky. Times and a red top.
Read through the Radio Times and compare look at the programmes it produces. All for a few quid a week. A bargain.
If you want to dance to Murdoch's tune, then you can by not paying the charge. But think what you will be missing.
Since the BBC became the victim of politics, it has lost the Olympics and half of F1. All due to politics.
I have a number of American friends who just enthuse about the BBC. Their treat after the long journey over.
Think what you will lose before rejoicing.
Fox News anyone? My lad has a friend who emigrated to Oz and he says he'd love the place if it had 'decent', ie BBC, television. Out there it is all controlled by Murdoch.
Vaud said:
Agreed.
Scrap BBC 3&4, along with half the radio stations.
Drop the expensive sports rights.
Have BBC 1, 2 + Arts
Respond to the youth market and add streaming (as Canada have IIRC).
Don't scrap BBC 4. Just rebrand it BBC 2 and restore BBC2 to what it used to be - TV for people with a brain.Scrap BBC 3&4, along with half the radio stations.
Drop the expensive sports rights.
Have BBC 1, 2 + Arts
Respond to the youth market and add streaming (as Canada have IIRC).
Eric Mc said:
There are far too many BBC TV channels. BBC 3 needed to go. BBC 4 should be what it should always have been BBC2.
This. Anything good on those channels ends up on 1 or 2 anyway so why not cut the s
te and repeats and condense it all back into the two we had before?I don't believe the BBC does produce the best programmes as it maybe once did. The best dramas of recent years have come from the US, Scandinavia, Netflix etc, and even ITV with Downton Abbey (apparently). You can find documentaries on Discovery, History et al, and for more niche topics the likes of Vice and it's spin offs. As for sport, it can't compete with Sky or BT or seemingly Eurosport. At the moment there are 16 live matches from Wimbledon, apart from Murray or Federer is anyone watching them? That's 16 camera teams, 16 commentary teams, 16 producers etc etc. Necessary? Desirable?
Then there's the monopoly of news and the de facto nature of the website not helped by the fact they overspent £36m on one of the upgrades. Not the cost, the overspend. Is it any wonder it's the most popular site in the UK? Who else can compete with that?
Vice is a case in point, the fact Ed Miliband hadn't heard of a billion dollar media business says all you need to know. Creates great content (and some crap), makes a lot of money and I've never given them a penny. Nor sat through any ads (although I use Adblock so they may have them on the YT channel). This is the future, now. The BBC in it's present format is f
ked.Eric Mc said:
It's such a bizarre concept that virtually every Western European country has a similar set up - except that they almost all show commercials on their state owned and licence funded stations.
I was brought up in Ireland where RTE is the national broadcaster. They are funded by a compulsory licence fee too but they have always shown commercials as well.
The BBC was the first kid on the block, all that occured was that later players copied the British Gov'ts funding model. I was brought up in Ireland where RTE is the national broadcaster. They are funded by a compulsory licence fee too but they have always shown commercials as well.
Not an endorsement of the method , they just copied. Involves politicians taking money by force , nothing new in that respect.
Eric Mc said:
turbobloke said:
Don't be too concerned, when the licence fee is abolished you can always use the money saved to subscribe to what's left of the BBC, and the BBC is way to the left
The money saved is so little it would only allow me a tiny amount of access to any subscription channels - that's for sure.turbobloke said:
Not other channels, the Beeb's subscription service after the licence is kiboshed. They'll need to pitch it low to get anywhere near half-decent numbers.
How would that work commercially then? Could they maintain the production standards they achieve currently on a subscription level similar to the current licence?Look at what Sky actually makes and commissions with its huge subscription rates - not much.
Sky - large subscription, small customer base.
BBC - cheap licence, massive customer base.
Eric Mc said:
The BBC produces good programming now (especially documentaries) and it also produces dross now.
No different to 10,20 or 30 years ago.
On balance, it produces enough good content to keep me watching. I avoid the dross.
Other channels have a similar mix but on the whole at the BBC the balance of good compared to dross is better than on most commercial TV.
I am sure that if you think it's still good enough to keep watching, you will have no problems in continuing to pay for it. Me on the other hand, if given the choice, would cease paying for it, as there are much better and higher quality alternatives, mostly without the leftist nature of a publicly paid for behemoth of a corporation running though it like a stick of rock. I have no problems in paying for what I like to watch, for me, that does not include the BBC.No different to 10,20 or 30 years ago.
On balance, it produces enough good content to keep me watching. I avoid the dross.
Other channels have a similar mix but on the whole at the BBC the balance of good compared to dross is better than on most commercial TV.
Eric Mc said:
You don't hear the bhing and the moaning about licence fees in those other countries though. It is a total non-Issue in Ireland, for example. And yet, NONE of these other channels, including RTE, produce anything like the quality and breadth of programming BBC does.
Maybe their national broadcasters are less of a laughing stock, being impartial and not wasting £hundredsofmillions while maintaining an air of arrogant superiority would certainly help the BBC. They think their island of leftyism is representative, boy did they get a shock in May but like previous shocks they put it out of their mind and carry on paying themselves ludicrious salary and pension packages with daft severance payments while leaning so far over the left they're in danger of toppling. Isolation and detachment are part of the BBC disease. If other national broadcasters are like that or heading that way, their fate will also be sealed at some point.hing and the moaning about licence fees in those other countries though. It is a total non-Issue in Ireland, for example. And yet, NONE of these other channels, including RTE, produce anything like the quality and breadth of programming BBC does.chris watton said:
Eric Mc said:
The BBC produces good programming now (especially documentaries) and it also produces dross now.
No different to 10,20 or 30 years ago.
On balance, it produces enough good content to keep me watching. I avoid the dross.
Other channels have a similar mix but on the whole at the BBC the balance of good compared to dross is better than on most commercial TV.
I am sure that if you think it's still good enough to keep watching, you will have no problems in continuing to pay for it. Me on the other hand, if given the choice, would cease paying for it, as there are much better and higher quality alternatives, mostly without the leftist nature of a publicly paid for behemoth of a corporation running though it like a stick of rock. I have no problems in paying for what I like to watch, for me, that does not include the BBC.No different to 10,20 or 30 years ago.
On balance, it produces enough good content to keep me watching. I avoid the dross.
Other channels have a similar mix but on the whole at the BBC the balance of good compared to dross is better than on most commercial TV.
There isn't a single thing I miss, and not having their constant propaganda emissions around is great, less information pollution and no earnest lefties droning on in support of the UN, EU, Labour, climate fairytales, etc. It had become like being forced to listen to somebody reading The Guardian out loud, which is actually pretty close to reality.
As I said, there is enough programming on BBC to allow you to avoid all those programmes you perceive to be biased against your point of view.
They produce a lot of stuff, you know.
They wouldn't be able top do this without the current licence fee method of funding. Once commercial imperatives become dominant, the nature of what can be done changes too.
My solution - expand the licence fee to make those who are watching BBC content on iPlayer only actually pay for what they are looking at. That seems to be the kernel of there recent problem.
In fact, beneath the headlines this could very well be a ploy by the BBC to get the government alerted to the fact that millions are currently watching BBC content for nothing.
They produce a lot of stuff, you know.
They wouldn't be able top do this without the current licence fee method of funding. Once commercial imperatives become dominant, the nature of what can be done changes too.
My solution - expand the licence fee to make those who are watching BBC content on iPlayer only actually pay for what they are looking at. That seems to be the kernel of there recent problem.
In fact, beneath the headlines this could very well be a ploy by the BBC to get the government alerted to the fact that millions are currently watching BBC content for nothing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff