Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[Bill]

Pesty said:

This is such an odd attitude in this country. I know my place, programmed to be serfs. Why do you constantly have to prove you are innocent.

why even come once but you already told them once and you are happy for them to come again? No letters either?

No hassle for you but an old confused person, will be easily coerced oh you have a tv sign here.

Prove you have no fishing rods

Ridiculous.

Two separate occasions at two different addresses. And I'd binned the letters rather than send them back/go online. And no proof was needed, they asked and I said I didn't need one due to not having a TV. Simple.

[anonymous-user]

Pesty said:

I know the answer to that be honest you don’t care what he likes you just want him to pay for what you like.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th February 08:07

Yes that's exactly how those who support the concept of public service broadcasting feel.

[Leylandeye]

tr7v8 said:

Brooking10 said:

andymadmak said:

Likewise, the drama output from the BBC is pretty dire now.

The Fall

Line Of Duty

Killing Eve

Informer

Peaky Blinders

The Trial of Christine Keeley

Three Girls

Happy Valley

Luther

Gentleman Jack

Years & Years

Sherlock

Do you actually watch TV ?

Tried most of these, thought them ste, if you're so happy with them you pay for them. Me I'll pass thanks.

To be fair, most people would find something of interest in that list. I think putting a tax on subscription services and digital media sounds like a great idea.

[PRTVR]

Leylandeye said:

tr7v8 said:

Brooking10 said:

andymadmak said:

Likewise, the drama output from the BBC is pretty dire now.

The Fall

Line Of Duty

Killing Eve

Informer

Peaky Blinders

The Trial of Christine Keeley

Three Girls

Happy Valley

Luther

Gentleman Jack

Years & Years

Sherlock

Do you actually watch TV ?

Tried most of these, thought them ste, if you're so happy with them you pay for them. Me I'll pass thanks.

To be fair, most people would find something of interest in that list. I think putting a tax on subscription services and digital media sounds like a great idea.

So taxing people who pay for something they want to watch so that other people can watch things they want free ?
Why not tax the BBC so we all can view Netflix free.

[anonymous-user]

PRTVR said:

So taxing people who pay for something they want to watch so that other people can watch things they want free ?
Why not tax the BBC so we all can view Netflix free.

Why is it that the fact the BBC has a remit which extends beyond prime-time television seems to be completely lost on most of the antis .......

[hutchst]

Brooking10 said:

Why is it that the fact the BBC has a remit which extends beyond prime-time television seems to be completely lost on most of the antis .......

Do you honestly think that half a dozen people on a motoring website is most of the antis? I assume you're brighter than that, so assume you're just on a wind-up.

Have a couple of proper questions to contemplate. Do you think that the World Service is part of the BBC's remit? If so, how is it regulated?

[anonymous-user]

hutchst said:

Brooking10 said:

Why is it that the fact the BBC has a remit which extends beyond prime-time television seems to be completely lost on most of the antis .......

Do you honestly think that half a dozen people on a motoring website is most of the antis? I assume you're brighter than that, so assume you're just on a wind-up.

Have a couple of proper questions to contemplate. Do you think that the World Service is part of the BBC's remit? If so, how is it regulated?

You really shouldn’t assume any level of intelligence on my part, it’ll only lead to disappointment.

I’m comfortable in an assumption that the mass market lack of appreciation of what the BBC was founded upon and perhaps more pertinently what it has evolved to become (in terms of service provision as opposed to any editorial critique) has largely been boiled down to “I don’t like what’s on BBC TV” and “Netflix”. We live in a low brow, populist society where the sound bite is king, attention spans are low and self-centrism hold sway.

As for WS its remit is clearly defined in places various, its raison d’etre is in stark terms significantly more political I suspect than many imagine.


Apostrophes !!

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th February 09:25

[hutchst]

Brooking10 said:

You really shouldn’t assume any level of intelligence on my part, it’ll only lead to disappointment.

I’m comfortable in an assumption that the mass market lack of appreciation of what the BBC was founded upon and perhaps more pertinently what it has evolved to become (in terms of service provision as opposed to any editorial critique) has largely been boiled down to “I don’t like what’s on BBC TV” and “Netflix”. We live in a low brow, populist society where the sound bite is king, attention spans are low and self-centrism hold sway.

As for WS its remit is clearly defined in places various, its raison d’etre is in stark terms significantly more political I suspect than many imagine.


Apostrophes !!

Edited by Brooking10 on Monday 24th February 09:25

And regulation?

[anonymous-user]

hutchst said:

Brooking10 said:

You really shouldn’t assume any level of intelligence on my part, it’ll only lead to disappointment.

I’m comfortable in an assumption that the mass market lack of appreciation of what the BBC was founded upon and perhaps more pertinently what it has evolved to become (in terms of service provision as opposed to any editorial critique) has largely been boiled down to “I don’t like what’s on BBC TV” and “Netflix”. We live in a low brow, populist society where the sound bite is king, attention spans are low and self-centrism hold sway.

As for WS its remit is clearly defined in places various, its raison d’etre is in stark terms significantly more political I suspect than many imagine.


Apostrophes !!

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th February 09:25

And regulation?

It self regulates does it not ? With supposed intervention from HMG.

As I said above its underlying purpose is markedly more political in nature than the wider organisation.

[PRTVR]

Brooking10 said:

hutchst said:

Brooking10 said:

You really shouldn’t assume any level of intelligence on my part, it’ll only lead to disappointment.

I’m comfortable in an assumption that the mass market lack of appreciation of what the BBC was founded upon and perhaps more pertinently what it has evolved to become (in terms of service provision as opposed to any editorial critique) has largely been boiled down to “I don’t like what’s on BBC TV” and “Netflix”. We live in a low brow, populist society where the sound bite is king, attention spans are low and self-centrism hold sway.

As for WS its remit is clearly defined in places various, its raison d’etre is in stark terms significantly more political I suspect than many imagine.


Apostrophes !!

Edited by Brooking10 on Monday 24th February 09:25

And regulation?

It self regulates does it not ? With supposed intervention from HMG.

As I said above its underlying purpose is markedly more political in nature than the wider organisation.

So people should be made to pay for a political viewpoint that they may not subscribe to ?

[anonymous-user]

PRTVR said:

Brooking10 said:

hutchst said:

Brooking10 said:

You really shouldn’t assume any level of intelligence on my part, it’ll only lead to disappointment.

I’m comfortable in an assumption that the mass market lack of appreciation of what the BBC was founded upon and perhaps more pertinently what it has evolved to become (in terms of service provision as opposed to any editorial critique) has largely been boiled down to “I don’t like what’s on BBC TV” and “Netflix”. We live in a low brow, populist society where the sound bite is king, attention spans are low and self-centrism hold sway.

As for WS its remit is clearly defined in places various, its raison d’etre is in stark terms significantly more political I suspect than many imagine.


Apostrophes !!

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th February 09:25

And regulation?

It self regulates does it not ? With supposed intervention from HMG.

As I said above its underlying purpose is markedly more political in nature than the wider organisation.

So people should be made to pay for a political viewpoint that they may not subscribe to ?

1 - that’s a classic anti-taxation whinge. Most of us pay to support apparatus we don’t always agree with.

2 - Do you know what the WS underlying political raison d’etre actually is ?

[768]

Brooking10 said:

1 - that’s a classic anti-taxation whinge. Most of us pay to support apparatus we don’t always agree with.

That's a classic anti-anti-taxation whinge.

[Cold]

There's seems to be a proliferation of negativity and sneering aimed at Netflix for some reason. Just for the sale of variety, what are the viewpoints about Freeview?
Should someone who wants to watch an old movie on Paramount still have to pay the BBC for the privilege?

[hutchst]

Cold said:

There's seems to be a proliferation of negativity and sneering aimed at Netflix for some reason. Just for the sale of variety, what are the viewpoints about Freeview?
Should someone who wants to watch an old movie on Paramount still have to pay the BBC for the privilege?

Not at the moment because they're all over 75

[anonymous-user]

Cold said:

There's seems to be a proliferation of negativity and sneering aimed at Netflix for some reason. Just for the sale of variety, what are the viewpoints about Freeview?
Should someone who wants to watch an old movie on Paramount still have to pay the BBC for the privilege?

There’s neither negativity nor sneering aimed at Netflix, it has proven to be a game changer in how we consume entertainment. Its long term business model looks challenging but it’s definitely been transformational.

My personal view is that it is fatuous to compare it to the BBC as a yardstick as to how the BBC should or shouldn’t be funded. The remits are different and one far narrower than the other.

Paying the licence fee is in part what affords the opportunity to watch said old movie on Paramount given the BBC is a part owner.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th February 12:04

[i4got]

I'm not sure what the big issue on licensing is here. The license seems a very outdated way of collecting revenue for a TV/radio subscription. When it started there were no other subscription systems to compare it to. There are now plenty.

No why not go subscription now.

Those who think its good value and has quality output can have no arguments as if their argument is true then the subscriptions will cover (at least) the license fee.

Those who argue its bad value will not pay and will not be able to watch. It's a very easy argument to solve. If the output is as good as people have been arguing then surely it can stand on its own merit.

Other platforms who want to show BBC content will pay for the privilege as they do now I assume.

Sure there will be some areas that need cross-subsidies but doesn't that happen now with commercial organisations.

It doesn't need to be a major political debate.

Personally I would probably pay about a tenner a month for it - same roughly as I do for Spotify and Netflix. I think younger generations will find the license an anachronism in the world of subscriptions that they have become used to.

[chrispmartha]

i4got said:

Those who think its good value and has quality output can have no arguments as if their argument is true then the subscriptions will cover (at least) the license fee.

There has been quite a few arguments from people (including me) as to why the current model is better than a subscription model but they seem to have been ignored somewhat.

i don't think anyone who is in favour of the BBC and license fee is under any illusion that if it wasn't compulsory the BBC would get the same revenue.

[Zirconia]

Cold said:

There's seems to be a proliferation of negativity and sneering aimed at Netflix for some reason. Just for the sale of variety, what are the viewpoints about Freeview?
Should someone who wants to watch an old movie on Paramount still have to pay the BBC for the privilege?

Netflix is oft quoted as the business model to follow, the same Netflix that has a dodgy tax record in the UK, tax breaks at our expense, 9billion+ in debt and future is uncertain. Then factor in what the BBC is required to provide and the rules it has to work to, there is a gulf of difference. Not only that but Netflix as an IPTV only solution. The two are not really comparable unless Cummings wants to get rid of any aerial broadcasting or only want a Fox TV arrangement that barks the party line.

Some people are happy with a non live model, figure show many are watching the live model. Aerial feeds cover more of the UK than IP I think. Though I expect that in time IPTV will overtake all, aerial and satellite, that should be a natural progression but needs more reach of broadband and ISP's not being silly buggers.

Freeview has its issues, as does Youview. BBC pulls out of Freeview due to the Cummings boot in the groin then I wonder if it (freeview) can survive as it is. Same will go for all the aerial services in the UK, there will need to be a re model and transmitter feed adjustment and costs picked up by the other players.

[anonymous-user]

Zirconia said:

Netflix is oft quoted as the business model to follow, the same Netflix that has a dodgy tax record in the UK, tax breaks at our expense, 9billion+ in debt and future is uncertain. Then factor in what the BBC is required to provide and the rules it has to work to, there is a gulf of difference. Not only that but Netflix as an IPTV only solution. The two are not really comparable unless Cummings wants to get rid of any aerial broadcasting or only want a Fox TV arrangement that barks the party line.

Some people are happy with a non live model, figure show many are watching the live model. Aerial feeds cover more of the UK than IP I think. Though I expect that in time IPTV will overtake all, aerial and satellite, that should be a natural progression but needs more reach of broadband and ISP's not being silly buggers.

Freeview has its issues, as does Youview. BBC pulls out of Freeview due to the Cummings boot in the groin then I wonder if it (freeview) can survive as it is. Same will go for all the aerial services in the UK, there will need to be a re model and transmitter feed adjustment and costs picked up by the other players.

This is IMO a good and interesting post given the reference to the core (and increasingly diverse) technology that delivers FTA broadcasting.

[hutchst]

chrispmartha said:

There has been quite a few arguments from people (including me) as to why the current model is better than a subscription model but they seem to have been ignored somewhat.

i don't think anyone who is in favour of the BBC and license fee is under any illusion that if it wasn't compulsory the BBC would get the same revenue.

It is possible to support the concept of public funding, by licence or otherwise, to finance a public service broadcaster, while at the same time question the fitness for purpose of the current BBC setup to fulfill that objective.