BBC licence fee poll.
Poll: BBC licence fee poll.
Total Members Polled: 1030
Discussion
Cheese Mechanic said:
Hysterical nonsense. There is a good argument that the World service should be funded from taxation, as it projects our imagery as a nation to the world at large. Its not difficult to imagine it gives a very positive of the UK abroad.
As for the rest of it? It does nothing others cannot do. Absolutley no justification whatsoever to be funded by state sanction.
You'd be happy with election coverage, as an example, being dictated by Sky? Our news broadcasts would become a party political broadcast for <whichever party Murdoch supports at the time>. And don't use current Sky standards as a yardstick, as the very presence of BBC News effectively holds them to account, to a degree.As for the rest of it? It does nothing others cannot do. Absolutley no justification whatsoever to be funded by state sanction.
As I've said, be careful what you wish for.
zarjaz1991 said:
You'd be happy with election coverage, as an example, being dictated by Sky? Our news broadcasts would become a party political broadcast for <whichever party Murdoch supports at the time>. And don't use current Sky standards as a yardstick, as the very presence of BBC News effectively holds them to account, to a degree.
As I've said, be careful what you wish for.
What did one BBC broadcaster say once, when interviewing a Labour MP - 'If WE win the election...'As I've said, be careful what you wish for.
Yep, completely unbiased..
chris watton said:
Sigh, if only that were the case....
The BBC does make a very serious effort to be unbiased. Constitutionally, it is supposed to be unbiased. There is a requirement for it to be so. It doesn't always get it right, but it can be and is held to account when it doesn't. As I have already stated, I'm not suggesting some reform and change isn't required but I do not wish to see the abolition of the BBC or its transformation into "just another commercial broadcaster".I find the BBC to be mostly unbiased, and I'm not a "leftie" either.
zarjaz1991 said:
Grasping? Have you seen Sky's prices recently?
I have. It's only twice the licence fee.The best bit is they'll actually show all the rugby, football (if you must), F1, etc. that the BBC look down on. I've been enjoying the Hockey World League this week while my son's been enjoying Bear Grylls reruns. There's literally hours of TV every day that isn't fronted by Clare Balding or Kate Humble.
Of course if you're happy with greats from the world's best broadcaster such as Don't Tell the Bride Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents or the hilarious W1A, then it may not be worth the marginal extra and you'll likely be delighted that they chose to pay for The Voice rather than F1.
chris watton said:
What did one BBC broadcaster say once, when interviewing a Labour MP - 'If WE win the election...'
Yep, completely unbiased..
Yes, because one dodgy reporter is obviously representative of the entire organisation.Yep, completely unbiased..
As I've said repeatedly now, the BBC is not without faults and improvements and reform are needed. Abolition isn't the answer though.
zarjaz1991 said:
without the BBC you're leaving the country open to the often dubious antics of ruthless, powerful commercial broadcasters. I'm afraid I genuinely fear what we'd end up with Murdoch is very obviously biased in whatever direction he happens to choose and you would have absolutely no counter balance to that at all. No thanks.
We'd end up with US TV and as an example of that we'd get Fox News type reporting instead of the current 6pm news from the BBC. Have you ever watched Fox News? It's the Mail on steroids.0000 said:
I have. It's only twice the licence fee.
The best bit is they'll actually show all the rugby, football (if you must), F1, etc. that the BBC look down on. I've been enjoying the Hockey World League this week while my son's been enjoying Bear Grylls reruns. There's literally hours of TV every day that isn't fronted by Clare Balding or Kate Humble.
Of course if you're happy with greats from the world's best broadcaster such as Don't Tell the Bride Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents or the hilarious W1A, then it may not be worth the marginal extra and you'll likely be delighted that they chose to pay for The Voice rather than F1.
This is a strange argument. I'm not sure I ever suggested I'm a fan of everything the BBC produces.The best bit is they'll actually show all the rugby, football (if you must), F1, etc. that the BBC look down on. I've been enjoying the Hockey World League this week while my son's been enjoying Bear Grylls reruns. There's literally hours of TV every day that isn't fronted by Clare Balding or Kate Humble.
Of course if you're happy with greats from the world's best broadcaster such as Don't Tell the Bride Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents or the hilarious W1A, then it may not be worth the marginal extra and you'll likely be delighted that they chose to pay for The Voice rather than F1.
I don't generally listen to Radio 3 because I'm not into classical music, but I'd be horrified if they decided to scrap it because I believe a service like that is of great value as a whole. I do listen to Radio 2, Radio 4, Radio 5 Live, Radio 6 Music, and BBC Local Radio. I'm driving around 50,000 miles a year and BBC Radio is of great importance to that. For me anyhow.
What you've done there is listed a few shows that don't appeal to you and imply it's typical of all their output. The BBC is supposed to cover as many aspects of society as it can, not all of it will appeal to everyone. I don't listen to BBC Asian Network but it has a value and a purpose and I wouldn't want it gone.
And I'm not sure the BBC "look down on" those sports you mention. They are not a commercial broadcaster and have limits on what they can "bid". If they pay a huge amount they get "why is my licence fee money being wasted on this?" and if they bid too low and lose the rights they get "why isn't the license fee money covering this?". Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think "for the most part" they get things right, but not always.
zarjaz1991 said:
You'd be happy with election coverage, as an example, being dictated by Sky? Our news broadcasts would become a party political broadcast for <whichever party Murdoch supports at the time>. And don't use current Sky standards as a yardstick, as the very presence of BBC News effectively holds them to account, to a degree.
As I've said, be careful what you wish for.
If you are implying the BBC is impartial , then you are totally and completely wrong. Its own staff have admitted its leftist bias on repeated and multiple occasions. As I've said, be careful what you wish for.
Just one of may such occasions : http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9...
The Spectator, hardly a bastion of far right skewed propaganda.
The envy of the world nonsense again.
Why have so few countries copied the model if that is the case? Quite a few have even abolished it.
The BBC has a huge budget and produces thousands of hours of television. It would be a miracle if they didn't make some good stuff.
That's not an argument for a tax on televisions or for an inherently biased state broadcaster.
Why have so few countries copied the model if that is the case? Quite a few have even abolished it.
The BBC has a huge budget and produces thousands of hours of television. It would be a miracle if they didn't make some good stuff.
That's not an argument for a tax on televisions or for an inherently biased state broadcaster.
The only part of the BBC worth state funding is the relativity unpopular radio stations. R2 & R2 are just commerical s
te without adverts, R3 & R4 are good. All the asian/extra/other bks should get scrapped.
What annoys me is the bit you have to pay for is one of the worst bits of the organisation.
te without adverts, R3 & R4 are good. All the asian/extra/other bks should get scrapped.What annoys me is the bit you have to pay for is one of the worst bits of the organisation.
zarjaz1991 said:
That's from your perspective. I would argue that an unbiased state broadcaster, free from political or commercial interference or bias, *is* an essential service.
The BBC has special remits within its charter, such as to inform and educate. A company like Sky has only one remit - to make a huge profit for its owner.
As said, if you beleive the BBC is unbiased then you are naive in the extreme. Its own staff admit such repeatedly. The BBC has special remits within its charter, such as to inform and educate. A company like Sky has only one remit - to make a huge profit for its owner.
I don’t have kids, but friends who do tell me that CBBC and Cbeebies are excellent, and free of advertising of course. They regard these channels as an invaluable public service, giving kids a break from exploitative commercial indoctrination.
On one point, however, I would agree with the BBC’s critics. Criminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee is indefensible. If those of us who support the BBC want it to continue in anything resembling its present form, its audience has to be willing to pay for it because they value it, not because they are forced to pay under threat of prosecution.
On one point, however, I would agree with the BBC’s critics. Criminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee is indefensible. If those of us who support the BBC want it to continue in anything resembling its present form, its audience has to be willing to pay for it because they value it, not because they are forced to pay under threat of prosecution.
Bradgate said:
I don’t have kids, but friends who do tell me that CBBC and Cbeebies are excellent, and free of advertising of course. They regard these channels as an invaluable public service, giving kids a break from exploitative commercial indoctrination.
I have kids. It's crap, but then I don't put them in front of commercials anyway.Bradgate said:
its audience has to be willing to pay for it because they value it, not because they are forced to pay under threat of prosecution.
I think that simple and fair proposition would change everything. I don't really have an objection to their being a left wing broadcaster but I don't see why it should be able to tax televisions.
I would also like to drastically change the laws governing news broadcasting which as I understand it mandate "unbiased" news. Allow open and explicit bias and let people make up their own minds.
AJS- said:
I would also like to drastically change the laws governing news broadcasting which as I understand it mandate "unbiased" news. Allow open and explicit bias and let people make up their own minds.
That could work very well for the BBC. Sky would lurch off to the far right fringe and become a British version of the ludicrous Fox News, ITV would be subject to overwhelming commercial pressure from its advertisers (eg the Telegraph/HSBC) and the BBC would continue to be impartial and unbiased.People would value that enormously, and be happy to pay for it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff