Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
Mark Benson said:
chrispmartha said:
The BBC has a vast array of output, I would be amazed even if the biggest critics of the BBC cannot find something they like from them,
So it should thrive as a subscription service then, shouldn't it?TTwiggy said:
Mark Benson said:
chrispmartha said:
The BBC has a vast array of output, I would be amazed even if the biggest critics of the BBC cannot find something they like from them,
So it should thrive as a subscription service then, shouldn't it?Why are we funding a failing business model through regressive taxation then?
Mark Benson said:
chrispmartha said:
The BBC has a vast array of output, I would be amazed even if the biggest critics of the BBC cannot find something they like from them,
So it should thrive as a subscription service then, shouldn't it?Do you think everything in life should be subscription based? Do you object to some of your Council Tax being spent on Leisure Facilities and the Arts?
Personally I think we all benefit as a society if we all put in to non-essential services as well as essential services.
Mark Benson said:
What a specious argument.
Education, the police and fire services are not exculdable services. There are no alternatives to the police and fire service. For those that can't afford private education, there is only one option for their children and an educated workforce benefits the country in excess of the costs - children grow up and become taxpayers.
As for elderly and social care - it's another necessity and the rules around care of the elderly do require their savings to be used, up to a point when the state takes over.
However, I can and do survive life perfectly well with just Netflix on my TV.
And of course general taxation is linked to how much someone earns; the poorer in society pay less. The licence fee is £154 whatever you earn.
Yes they are. Quite easily.Education, the police and fire services are not exculdable services. There are no alternatives to the police and fire service. For those that can't afford private education, there is only one option for their children and an educated workforce benefits the country in excess of the costs - children grow up and become taxpayers.
As for elderly and social care - it's another necessity and the rules around care of the elderly do require their savings to be used, up to a point when the state takes over.
However, I can and do survive life perfectly well with just Netflix on my TV.
And of course general taxation is linked to how much someone earns; the poorer in society pay less. The licence fee is £154 whatever you earn.
1. Abolish state funded education. Everybody has to go private. Or they can get a job.
2. Have a private Police force. There are countries where this is already the de facto situation. The Police will arrest whoever the person paying them the most tells them to. How much more "PH" would it need to be? You get done for driving at 100mph? No problem, you can literally say "I pay your wages" and they'll let you go.
3. Same for the Fire Brigade. My house is asbestos-lined so why should I apy for others who don't care about their family as much?
4. Elderly care? Plenty of countries don't have State-funded elderly care and they seem fine......
Mark Benson said:
So you're saying the BBC couldn't survive, never mind thrive as a subscription service.
Why are we funding a failing business model through regressive taxation then?
Ah, the old 'answer a question with a question' ploy. I'm sure it could survive; it's got more experience, more infrastructure and more talent than the majority of media companies, and some senior staff would actually welcome the freedom that a subscription model would bring. But if it remained the national broadcaster it clearly couldn't be allowed to run the sort of debt that Netflix does. So content would be pared back.Why are we funding a failing business model through regressive taxation then?
As to your specious second question, if we only fund things that make a profit, it will be a poorer world.
Any danger of answering my questions now?
chrispmartha said:
The BBC has a vast array of output...
I think this is one of the criticisms of it. There was an article in the paper yesterday which said the BBC charter has a clause along the lines of "The BBC should not affect locally or commercially produced content". It seems the BBC website is coming in for stick because it has become many people's default news/weather/travel website and it isn't allowing space for local websites (spawned out of local newspapers in many cases). The BBC also have forty local radio stations in England so again there is criticism that they are not allowing room for independent local stations.I do think the problem will be in the future. There are plenty of people now who like and enjoy the BBC and are happy for the current model to continue. That's fair enough. But how do you convince the current generation of teenagers to pay a licence fee? I just don't see them wanting to, or being interested in it.
chrispmartha said:
Mark Benson said:
chrispmartha said:
The BBC has a vast array of output, I would be amazed even if the biggest critics of the BBC cannot find something they like from them,
So it should thrive as a subscription service then, shouldn't it?Do you think everything in life should be subscription based? Do you object to some of your Council Tax being spent on Leisure Facilities and the Arts?
Personally I think we all benefit as a society if we all put in to non-essential services as well as essential services.
RicksAlfas said:
But how do you convince the current generation of teenagers to pay a licence fee? I just don't see them wanting to, or being interested in it.
That is a good question, the BBC will have to change and move with the times, however scrapping the licence fee isn't the way forward IMHO.Countdown said:
V1nce Fox said:
Agreed. The price isn't the issue. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
If the fee was an opt-in subscription I wouldn't have an opinion, but I get a bit arsey about someone charging me for something I not only don't use, but often don't agree with.
it needs to go.
It's a shame we can't have the opt-in model for ALL areas of the Public Sector. That way people only pay for the things they want.If the fee was an opt-in subscription I wouldn't have an opinion, but I get a bit arsey about someone charging me for something I not only don't use, but often don't agree with.
it needs to go.
Ok, the BBC may be different from many of these essential services, but a huge amount of the stuff we all take for granted as just being there even if we rarely use them can only exist if they are universally funded. Each of use has a bigger draw on one service than another than someone else. If it wasn't universally funded, every service you wanted to use would become incredibly expensive, delivered really poorly or not available at all because whatever service it is would only be possible to deliver at the funding level its users want to pay - often a lot less than what it actually costs. At that point we all get shafted by a ripe market in insurance cover.
TTwiggy said:
Depends on your definition of 'survive'. Have you seen the size of Netflix's debt? Should that be a financial model to be encouraged? And one for our national broadcaster to be encouraged to follow?
Netflix are making a profit, what does it matter that they are debt rather than equity funded?DanL said:
ou said no, then wrote a bunch of stuff that says yes... You believe that the BBC provides enough good for society as a whole that it should be funded by society as a whole, similar to education, the fire service or any other tax payer funded thing.
Respectfully, I disagree. I’m not aware of anything the BBC does that other, ad-funded or subscription based channels, don’t do...
But I can quite easily make the argument that I don’t care about other people’s education, or health, or safety.Respectfully, I disagree. I’m not aware of anything the BBC does that other, ad-funded or subscription based channels, don’t do...
As the gentleman said so generously and expansively a few posts above “Why should I ?”.
As for the content vs cost vs provision argument and find the whole gamut for £3 a week, which has such universal appeal and audience numbers.
Ultimately I the economic/choice argument advanced bu so many on here complete b
ks and a smokescreen for their own political and societal fears.El stovey said:
V1nce Fox said:
Agreed. The price isn't the issue. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
If the fee was an opt-in subscription I wouldn't have an opinion, but I get a bit arsey about someone charging me for something I not only don't use, but often don't agree with.
it needs to go.
Why on earth are you paying for something you don’t use? If the fee was an opt-in subscription I wouldn't have an opinion, but I get a bit arsey about someone charging me for something I not only don't use, but often don't agree with.
it needs to go.
If you don’t watch any live tv or BBC iPlayer you don’t have to pay it.
t. I'm basically paying it at this point to avoid the hassle.RicksAlfas said:
chrispmartha said:
The BBC has a vast array of output...
I think this is one of the criticisms of it. There was an article in the paper yesterday which said the BBC charter has a clause along the lines of "The BBC should not affect locally or commercially produced content". It seems the BBC website is coming in for stick because it has become many people's default news/weather/travel website and it isn't allowing space for local websites (spawned out of local newspapers in many cases). The BBC also have forty local radio stations in England so again there is criticism that they are not allowing room for independent local stations.I do think the problem will be in the future. There are plenty of people now who like and enjoy the BBC and are happy for the current model to continue. That's fair enough. But how do you convince the current generation of teenagers to pay a licence fee? I just don't see them wanting to, or being interested in it.
chrispmartha said:
RicksAlfas said:
But how do you convince the current generation of teenagers to pay a licence fee? I just don't see them wanting to, or being interested in it.
That is a good question, the BBC will have to change and move with the times, however scrapping the licence fee isn't the way forward IMHO.https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/00...
TTwiggy said:
Ah, the old 'answer a question with a question' ploy. I'm sure it could survive; it's got more experience, more infrastructure and more talent than the majority of media companies, and some senior staff would actually welcome the freedom that a subscription model would bring. But if it remained the national broadcaster it clearly couldn't be allowed to run the sort of debt that Netflix does. So content would be pared back.
As to your specious second question, if we only fund things that make a profit, it will be a poorer world.
Any danger of answering my questions now?
Which questions? These?As to your specious second question, if we only fund things that make a profit, it will be a poorer world.
Any danger of answering my questions now?
TTwiggy said:
Have you seen the size of Netflix's debt? Should that be a financial model to be encouraged? And one for our national broadcaster to be encouraged to follow?
Yes, no and I don't really care.Why should be BBC go down the same route? The BBC already has market share and according to many on here, an audience that couldn't live without it.
Brooking10 said:
But I can quite easily make the argument that I don’t care about other people’s education, or health, or safety.
As the gentleman said so generously and expansively a few posts above “Why should I ?”.
As for the content vs cost vs provision argument and find the whole gamut for £3 a week, which has such universal appeal and audience numbers.
Ultimately I the economic/choice argument advanced bu so many on here complete bks and a smokescreen for their own political and societal fears.
What about the economic argument that we should pay for the Daily Telegraph or Viz magazine if we want to read it rather than charge a universal tax for it? Is that complete bAs the gentleman said so generously and expansively a few posts above “Why should I ?”.
As for the content vs cost vs provision argument and find the whole gamut for £3 a week, which has such universal appeal and audience numbers.
Ultimately I the economic/choice argument advanced bu so many on here complete b
ks and a smokescreen for their own political and societal fears.ks as well?V1nce Fox said:
El stovey said:
V1nce Fox said:
Agreed. The price isn't the issue. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
If the fee was an opt-in subscription I wouldn't have an opinion, but I get a bit arsey about someone charging me for something I not only don't use, but often don't agree with.
it needs to go.
Why on earth are you paying for something you don’t use? If the fee was an opt-in subscription I wouldn't have an opinion, but I get a bit arsey about someone charging me for something I not only don't use, but often don't agree with.
it needs to go.
If you don’t watch any live tv or BBC iPlayer you don’t have to pay it.
t. I'm basically paying it at this point to avoid the hassle.The idea that the BBC should be scrapped or go subscription is one of the saddest “destroy” movements yet.
At £154 it is very little for what you get.
And it is far more balanced than some would suggest or when compared to some of the absolute rot in other countries.
It should be a matter of national pride, like Brunel or Newton, and yet instead we have the disaffected and unhappy with their lives being told by Nigel and the Daily Mail that they need to be angry about stuff, and the BBC is on the list.
Sad times. Notable that no one is proposing to replace it with something better, just want to destroy something that might have upset them (probably for having some deeply unpleasant views challenged, that is often the trigger)
At £154 it is very little for what you get.
And it is far more balanced than some would suggest or when compared to some of the absolute rot in other countries.
It should be a matter of national pride, like Brunel or Newton, and yet instead we have the disaffected and unhappy with their lives being told by Nigel and the Daily Mail that they need to be angry about stuff, and the BBC is on the list.
Sad times. Notable that no one is proposing to replace it with something better, just want to destroy something that might have upset them (probably for having some deeply unpleasant views challenged, that is often the trigger)
Mark Benson said:
Countdown said:
Brooking10 said:
Can I have back my slice of tax take that goes on other people’s’ children’s education please ?
Woah....there's no way I could afford to pay for my kids' éducation, or the healthcare my wife received whilst she was pregnant, so if it's Ok with you I'd like to keep that all funded from general taxation. However I'd like a refund of all my tax that goes towards the Police (don't need them, Ive got a dog), the Fire Brigade (don't need them, I've got a fire extinguisher from Halfords £9.99 one shot job), Elderly Care (let their kids pay for them, why should I?) and lots of other things that I'm not bothered about. That's how it works isn't it? Anything "I" want everybody else should contribute towards, anything that I won't need is "the Nanny State getting involved in areas that the private sector is capable of providing in a better, more efficient, more equitable way".....
Education, the police and fire services are not exculdable services. There are no alternatives to the police and fire service. For those that can't afford private education, there is only one option for their children and an educated workforce benefits the country in excess of the costs - children grow up and become taxpayers.
As for elderly and social care - it's another necessity and the rules around care of the elderly do require their savings to be used, up to a point when the state takes over.
However, I can and do survive life perfectly well with just Netflix on my TV.
And of course general taxation is linked to how much someone earns; the poorer in society pay less. The licence fee is £154 whatever you earn.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff