Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
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 b
ks as well?
I haven’t yet seen that advanced .......would you care to ? ks as well?At least own of those esteemed organs is deliberately amusing
DeepEnd said:
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)
Quite, why do some like to 'do dow'n one of our great British institutions that is revered around the world is beyond me, why can't they be more patriotic and 'proud' of a world leading service ;-)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)
Why do they have to talk their country and its achievements down all the time?
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?
You mean like the NHS ?Why are we funding a failing business model through regressive taxation then?
That must really wind you up surely if the above is one of your criteria for where our tax revs go.
chrispmartha said:
DeepEnd said:
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)
Quite, why do some like to 'do dow'n one of our great British institutions that is revered around the world is beyond me, why can't they be more patriotic and 'proud' of a world leading service ;-)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)
Why do they have to talk their country and its achievements down all the time?
TTwiggy said:
chrispmartha said:
It's really not that difficult, if it bothered you that much you wouldn't watch 'live' tv and wouldn't need to pay.
As I said a few posts up, the 'value for money' argument is a smokescreen. BBC bashing is entirely political.WinstonWolf said:
TTwiggy said:
chrispmartha said:
It's really not that difficult, if it bothered you that much you wouldn't watch 'live' tv and wouldn't need to pay.
As I said a few posts up, the 'value for money' argument is a smokescreen. BBC bashing is entirely political.WinstonWolf said:
TTwiggy said:
chrispmartha said:
It's really not that difficult, if it bothered you that much you wouldn't watch 'live' tv and wouldn't need to pay.
As I said a few posts up, the 'value for money' argument is a smokescreen. BBC bashing is entirely political.Presumably you meant impartial?? If so I agree.
Edit : B10 beat me to it.
Brooking10 said:
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?
You mean like the NHS ?Why are we funding a failing business model through regressive taxation then?
That must really wind you up surely if the above is one of your criteria for where our tax revs go.
Mark Benson said:
Brooking10 said:
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?
You mean like the NHS ?Why are we funding a failing business model through regressive taxation then?
That must really wind you up surely if the above is one of your criteria for where our tax revs go.
I wouldn’t be, I’m remarkably dim.
Strange though how our most free market economy zealots when it comes to the BBC deem public healthcare as an essential service requiring public funding.
Crackie said:
WinstonWolf said:
TTwiggy said:
chrispmartha said:
It's really not that difficult, if it bothered you that much you wouldn't watch 'live' tv and wouldn't need to pay.
As I said a few posts up, the 'value for money' argument is a smokescreen. BBC bashing is entirely political.Presumably you meant impartial?? If so I agree.
Edit : B10 beat me to it.
king bd iFail autocorrect 
It's also never duck...
Brooking10 said:
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 ?”.
If there were these sort of services that were effectively free but required watching adverts, you may begin to question whether you should also pay a tax to provide an ad free version of the same thing. Particularly if you choose to use the advertising funded hospital (perhaps it’s more convenient, for example, or you prefer the decor) and have to pay for the ad free hospital just to be able to legally access the advert funded one.
DanL said:
That’s a false equivalence - there’s no advertising funded education, hospitals, etc.
If there were these sort of services that were effectively free but required watching adverts, you may begin to question whether you should also pay a tax to provide an ad free version of the same thing. Particularly if you choose to use the advertising funded hospital (perhaps it’s more convenient, for example, or you prefer the decor) and have to pay for the ad free hospital just to be able to legally access the advert funded one.
Who said anything about advertising ? The big push from today’s bunch of mock concerned consumer champions is apparently subscription. There are plenty of subscription funded medical facilities available as there indeed education establishments.If there were these sort of services that were effectively free but required watching adverts, you may begin to question whether you should also pay a tax to provide an ad free version of the same thing. Particularly if you choose to use the advertising funded hospital (perhaps it’s more convenient, for example, or you prefer the decor) and have to pay for the ad free hospital just to be able to legally access the advert funded one.
What you are missing, because perhaps I haven’t been explicit enough ,is that I have no problem with the £3 a week and equally I don’t mind that some people may take greater benefit from my £3 than I do. I’m also capable of understand that the licence fee contributes to funding the BBC and that means more than news, more than BBC 1 and in fact more than love to air TV as a whole.
Happy to repeat my assertion that the protestations on here wrapped in the unseemly see through shroud of faux altruism are laughable attempts to hide political and social objections.
Brooking10 said:
Who said anything about advertising ? The big push from today’s bunch of mock concerned consumer champions is apparently subscription. There are plenty of subscription funded medical facilities available as there indeed education establishments.
What you are missing, because perhaps I haven’t been explicit enough ,is that I have no problem with the £3 a week and equally I don’t mind that some people may take greater benefit from my £3 than I do. I’m also capable of understand that the licence fee contributes to funding the BBC and that means more than news, more than BBC 1 and in fact more than love to air TV as a whole.
Happy to repeat my assertion that the protestations on here wrapped in the unseemly see through shroud of faux altruism are laughable attempts to hide political and social objections.
Then I misunderstood your point... You’re happy to pay for the BBC, because you use and enjoy at least some of its output. You also missed mine.What you are missing, because perhaps I haven’t been explicit enough ,is that I have no problem with the £3 a week and equally I don’t mind that some people may take greater benefit from my £3 than I do. I’m also capable of understand that the licence fee contributes to funding the BBC and that means more than news, more than BBC 1 and in fact more than love to air TV as a whole.
Happy to repeat my assertion that the protestations on here wrapped in the unseemly see through shroud of faux altruism are laughable attempts to hide political and social objections.
Should people who don’t use the BBC have to pay for it? You believe yes, I thought because it’s doing something worthwhile and deserves to be funded.
Seems you actually believe it should be funded because you use it.
There are hundreds of thousands who don’t, and also have to fund it in order to watch live TV, and on the face of it this seems wrong to me. That’s despite me being too lazy to cancel the direct debit and dump my TV licence.
Once I move, my laziness will likely result in me not getting a new licence, and not plugging the TVs into the aerial, so I don’t have a problem with the licence fee personally... I do have issue with the idea you have to pay for things you don’t want, and will never “need” (unlike the army, hospitals, insurance, etc.)...
DanL said:
hen I misunderstood your point... You’re happy to pay for the BBC, because you use and enjoy at least some of its output. You also missed mine.
Should people who don’t use the BBC have to pay for it? You believe yes, I thought because it’s doing something worthwhile and deserves to be funded.
Seems you actually believe it should be funded because you use it.
There are hundreds of thousands who don’t, and also have to fund it in order to watch live TV, and on the face of it this seems wrong to me. That’s despite me being too lazy to cancel the direct debit and dump my TV licence.
Once I move, my laziness will likely result in me not getting a new licence, and not plugging the TVs into the aerial, so I don’t have a problem with the licence fee personally... I do have issue with the idea you have to pay for things you don’t want, and will never “need” (unlike the army, hospitals, insurance, etc.)...
A couple of points of clarity given you have made an assumption or two.Should people who don’t use the BBC have to pay for it? You believe yes, I thought because it’s doing something worthwhile and deserves to be funded.
Seems you actually believe it should be funded because you use it.
There are hundreds of thousands who don’t, and also have to fund it in order to watch live TV, and on the face of it this seems wrong to me. That’s despite me being too lazy to cancel the direct debit and dump my TV licence.
Once I move, my laziness will likely result in me not getting a new licence, and not plugging the TVs into the aerial, so I don’t have a problem with the licence fee personally... I do have issue with the idea you have to pay for things you don’t want, and will never “need” (unlike the army, hospitals, insurance, etc.)...
1 - I recognise many people get far more use from it than I do
2 - I see its value as extending way beyond what I consider to be of immediate value/benefit to me therefore I don’t understand why you arrive at the conclusion you do
Brooking10 said:
A couple of points of clarity given you have made an assumption or two.
1 - I recognise many people get far more use from it than I do
2 - I see its value as extending way beyond what I consider to be of immediate value/benefit to me therefore I don’t understand why you arrive at the conclusion you do
... and yet, you won’t pay for my petrol. Despite the fact I get more use from it than you do, and its value extends beyond immediate benefit to you. 1 - I recognise many people get far more use from it than I do
2 - I see its value as extending way beyond what I consider to be of immediate value/benefit to me therefore I don’t understand why you arrive at the conclusion you do
Should people pay for things they don’t want or need, when there are alternatives available that would be free if there wasn’t a requirement to also pay for the thing you don’t want?
You believe yes, I believe no, would appear to summarise our views on the TV licence.
I believe taxation is a good idea, as things need to be paid for. I don’t believe the BBC needs to be paid for these days... 60+ years ago, yes, but not today.
DanL said:
.. and yet, you won’t pay for my petrol. Despite the fact I get more use from it than you do, and its value extends beyond immediate benefit to you.
Should people pay for things they don’t want or need, when there are alternatives available that would be free if there wasn’t a requirement to also pay for the thing you don’t want?
You believe yes, I believe no, would appear to summarise our views on the TV licence.
I believe taxation is a good idea, as things need to be paid for. I don’t believe the BBC needs to be paid for these days... 60+ years ago, yes, but not today.
I neither want nor need my local MP..... and yet Should people pay for things they don’t want or need, when there are alternatives available that would be free if there wasn’t a requirement to also pay for the thing you don’t want?
You believe yes, I believe no, would appear to summarise our views on the TV licence.
I believe taxation is a good idea, as things need to be paid for. I don’t believe the BBC needs to be paid for these days... 60+ years ago, yes, but not today.
The bit you are missing is that I believe the BBC makes a contribution to society rather than being little more than a Netflix competitor.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff