Should the BBC be privatised?

[grumbledoak]

Lefty 200 Drams said:

But nobody has so far given any examples of the top-quality programming that comes from the BBC for me to disagree with.

The BBC subcontracts, so a lot of the good stuff would still be made. If they cancelled Top Gear someone else would pick it up.

In terms of quality, the scores over here: http://www.tvguide.co.uk/ tend to be pretty accurate. You'll find the BBC news way down the scale, while ironically "In the Night Garden" is practically never beaten. I know which one I'd watch by choice. I just think we should be given more freedom to pay for what we want.

[Eric Mc]

Lefty 200 Drams said:

Eric Mc said:

Lefty 200 Drams said:

jmorgan said:

Privatise the beeb and quality programing vanishes from the UK, welcome to the US and car crash telly.

No, the point is that if they actually do produce quality programming then it should be able to able to stand by itself and succeed without enforced public funding.

And I perosnally am not aware of any real quality programming from the BBC. I certainly don't enjoy TG any more.

There's more to the BBC than TG.

I don't dispute that. But nobody has so far given any examples of the top-quality programming that comes from the BBC for me to disagree with.

One man's "quality" is another man's "must avoid" - so it is difficult to make a list of what YOU might consider to be "quality". However, in MY opinion, most of the output of both BBC 4 and BBC Radio 4 I would describe as "quality". I also think that BBC's sports coverage is second to none (when they put their mind to it).

I do recognise that the BBC has lapsed on many occasions and some political bias can sometimes be perceived - but they do allow other voices too. Witness Andrew Neill's savaging of Dianne Abbot last week.

It's not perfect but I do not think that any other broadcaster ANYWHERE in the world comes even close to the breadth of stuff they cover.

[jmorgan]

Fittster said:

In your opinion would Total Wipe and the Chris Moyles show be classed intellectually stimulating?

In my defence, I do think there is some crud on the beeb. I do not watch or listen to it all. The recent one with the short one from TG and what we can or cannot see, whilst I liked the idea, the program was mediocre at best.

[odyssey2200]

Lefty 200 Drams said:

Should the BBC be privatised?
And the TV licence fee abolished?

Ask me again after tonights Panorama

[Fittster]

Eric Mc said:

Lefty 200 Drams said:

Eric Mc said:

Lefty 200 Drams said:

jmorgan said:

Privatise the beeb and quality programing vanishes from the UK, welcome to the US and car crash telly.

No, the point is that if they actually do produce quality programming then it should be able to able to stand by itself and succeed without enforced public funding.

And I perosnally am not aware of any real quality programming from the BBC. I certainly don't enjoy TG any more.

There's more to the BBC than TG.

I don't dispute that. But nobody has so far given any examples of the top-quality programming that comes from the BBC for me to disagree with.

One man's "quality" is another man's "must avoid" - so it is difficult to make a list of what YOU might consider to be "quality". However, in MY opinion, most of the output of both BBC 4 and BBC Radio 4 I would describe as "quality". I also think that BBC's sports coverage is second to none (when they put their mind to it).

I do recognise that the BBC has lapsed on many occasions and some political bias can sometimes be perceived - but they do allow other voices too. Witness Andrew Neill's savaging of Dianne Abbot last week.

It's not perfect but I do not think that any other broadcaster ANYWHERE in the world comes even close to the breadth of stuff they cover.

Should the BBC stick to Rethian principles and withdraw from other areas of broadcasting?

"The term 'Reithianism' describes certain principles of broadcasting associated with Lord Reith. These include an equal consideration of all viewpoints, probity, universality and a commitment to public service. It can be distinguished from the free-market approach to broadcasting, where programming aims to attract the largest audiences or advertising revenues, ahead of - and, in practice, often contrary to - any artistic merit, impartiality, educative or entertainment values, that a programme may have."

[Fittster]

jmorgan said:

Fittster said:

In your opinion would Total Wipe and the Chris Moyles show be classed intellectually stimulating?

In my defence, I do think there is some crud on the beeb. I do not watch or listen to it all. The recent one with the short one from TG and what we can or cannot see, whilst I liked the idea, the program was mediocre at best.

The point I'm getting at is should the BBC attempt to make programs of little educational or cultural benefit that could easily be made/shown by a commercial broadcaster.

Is it the role of the government to enforce a tax on the whole population to ensure the BBC can show Total Wipe Out on a Saturday evening? If not should the BBC be limited in the type of content it produces?

[grumbledoak]

Eric Mc said:

- but they do allow other voices too. Witness Andrew Neill's savaging of Dianne Abbot last week.

This will have been sanctioned, Andrew isn't that big, and the BBC haven't suddenly turned neutral. It wouldn't happen to Ed Balls, just as nothing like that was allowed for Blair or Brown.

[Lefty 200 Drams]

Fittster said:

Eric Mc said:

Lefty 200 Drams said:

Eric Mc said:

Lefty 200 Drams said:

jmorgan said:

Privatise the beeb and quality programing vanishes from the UK, welcome to the US and car crash telly.

No, the point is that if they actually do produce quality programming then it should be able to able to stand by itself and succeed without enforced public funding.

And I perosnally am not aware of any real quality programming from the BBC. I certainly don't enjoy TG any more.

There's more to the BBC than TG.

I don't dispute that. But nobody has so far given any examples of the top-quality programming that comes from the BBC for me to disagree with.

One man's "quality" is another man's "must avoid" - so it is difficult to make a list of what YOU might consider to be "quality". However, in MY opinion, most of the output of both BBC 4 and BBC Radio 4 I would describe as "quality". I also think that BBC's sports coverage is second to none (when they put their mind to it).

I do recognise that the BBC has lapsed on many occasions and some political bias can sometimes be perceived - but they do allow other voices too. Witness Andrew Neill's savaging of Dianne Abbot last week.

It's not perfect but I do not think that any other broadcaster ANYWHERE in the world comes even close to the breadth of stuff they cover.

Should the BBC stick to Rethian principles and withdraw from other areas of broadcasting?

"The term 'Reithianism' describes certain principles of broadcasting associated with Lord Reith. These include an equal consideration of all viewpoints, probity, universality and a commitment to public service. It can be distinguished from the free-market approach to broadcasting, where programming aims to attract the largest audiences or advertising revenues, ahead of - and, in practice, often contrary to - any artistic merit, impartiality, educative or entertainment values, that a programme may have."

[Eric Mc]

Fittster said:

Eric Mc said:

Lefty 200 Drams said:

Eric Mc said:

Lefty 200 Drams said:

jmorgan said:

Privatise the beeb and quality programing vanishes from the UK, welcome to the US and car crash telly.

No, the point is that if they actually do produce quality programming then it should be able to able to stand by itself and succeed without enforced public funding.

And I perosnally am not aware of any real quality programming from the BBC. I certainly don't enjoy TG any more.

There's more to the BBC than TG.

I don't dispute that. But nobody has so far given any examples of the top-quality programming that comes from the BBC for me to disagree with.

One man's "quality" is another man's "must avoid" - so it is difficult to make a list of what YOU might consider to be "quality". However, in MY opinion, most of the output of both BBC 4 and BBC Radio 4 I would describe as "quality". I also think that BBC's sports coverage is second to none (when they put their mind to it).

I do recognise that the BBC has lapsed on many occasions and some political bias can sometimes be perceived - but they do allow other voices too. Witness Andrew Neill's savaging of Dianne Abbot last week.

It's not perfect but I do not think that any other broadcaster ANYWHERE in the world comes even close to the breadth of stuff they cover.

Should the BBC stick to Rethian principles and withdraw from other areas of broadcasting?

"The term 'Reithianism' describes certain principles of broadcasting associated with Lord Reith. These include an equal consideration of all viewpoints, probity, universality and a commitment to public service. It can be distinguished from the free-market approach to broadcasting, where programming aims to attract the largest audiences or advertising revenues, ahead of - and, in practice, often contrary to - any artistic merit, impartiality, educative or entertainment values, that a programme may have."

I always thought that the fundamentals of Reithian broadcasting were to "Inform, Educate and Entertain"?

[DonkeyApple]

Lefty 200 Drams said:

And the TV licence fee abolished?

Do you think you get valkue for money? Do you watch/listen to/read the bbc?

Does the BBC turn a profit these days? If so, and if it really provides what people want then surely it could survive on it's own like every other media outlet has to?

How many people does it employ? Must be tens of thousands and I bet it's not an efficient organisation. Why would it need to be when it has so much public funding?

I rarely watch anything on the bbc and rarely listen to the radio. I get my news from websites (and I buy an old-fashioned printed paper most days). I don't feel particularly inclined to continue having to pay a TV licence for a pretty-biased service that I rarely intentionally use

My own personal interpretation of the BBC is that it's pretty st. They seem very keen on pushing a multi-cultural, liberal agenda - political correctness being more important than, well, anything (high quality journalism included).

Sell it off, give every household a little tax-cut and make the bbc stand on it's own.

IMHO

Absolutely not.

Very simple example of why not:

Life on Earth v When Insects Attack.

Top Gear v Fifth Gear

ITV and C5 are immensely low brow. Products made to cater for semi retarded worm fodder.

There are two reasons the BBC can do this and that is because it doesn't have to sell advertsing to the largest % of this country's population which are thicker than pig st and can be entertained with shiny objects and coloured beads and its mandate.

For all its faults the BBC still churns out exceptional examples of modern TV because of its mandate. If that mandate means they end up employing a few too many people and many of those are Notting Hill Socialistas then so be it. I'd rather those feckless s were all retained in one building in West London than let loose to pollute our streets.

I'm sure that ITV is a leaner organisation but that certainly doesn't lead to superior television. Their morning TV is aimed 100% at fkwits as is their evening output.

[eldar]

Scary this. Winge at paying £14 quid a month for TV, radio, but happily pay £50 a month for SKY which isn't near to 3 times better.

You'll love it when Murdoch has his monopoly.

[grumbledoak]

eldar said:

Scary this. Winge at paying £14 quid a month for TV, radio, but happily pay £50 a month for SKY which isn't near to 3 times better.

Some of us happily don't pay for Sky, you know.

fking BBC think they are somehow entitled to our money.

[Eric Mc]

grumbledoak said:

eldar said:

Scary this. Winge at paying £14 quid a month for TV, radio, but happily pay £50 a month for SKY which isn't near to 3 times better.

Some of us happily don't pay for Sky, you know.

fking BBC think they are somehow entitled to our money.

How come you manage NOT to pay for your Sky service then?

[Fittster]

eldar said:

Scary this. Winge at paying £14 quid a month for TV, radio, but happily pay £50 a month for SKY which isn't near to 3 times better.

You'll love it when Murdoch has his monopoly.

Why do you think he will have a monopoly in the UK when fox is a minor channel in the US?

[grumbledoak]

Eric Mc said:

How come you manage NOT to pay for your Sky service then?

I don't have one. I don't think it is worth it. Ditto the BBC.

[OnTheOverrun]

eldar said:

Scary this. Winge at paying £14 quid a month for TV, radio, but happily pay £50 a month for SKY which isn't near to 3 times better.

You'll love it when Murdoch has his monopoly.

What's scary about people not liking being taxed and criminalised to watch a few bloody TV channels?

If it's as good as all the BBC lovers on here say, you wouldn't need to keep threatening people with prison to fund it. Sell it off and clear some debts, I'm tired of funding other people's hours in front of the idiot box.

[eldar]

OnTheOverrun said:

eldar said:

Scary this. Winge at paying £14 quid a month for TV, radio, but happily pay £50 a month for SKY which isn't near to 3 times better.

You'll love it when Murdoch has his monopoly.

What's scary about people not liking being taxed and criminalised to watch a few bloody TV channels?

If it's as good as all the BBC lovers on here say, you wouldn't need to keep threatening people with prison to fund it. Sell it off and clear some debts, I'm tired of funding other people's hours in front of the idiot box.

You don't need a TV licence unless you watch live TV. Your choice.

TV licence is like any other tax. Pay it if its due, avoid it if you can. Evade it and you'll get criminalised, just like not taxing your car because you only do a couple of miles a day.

Agreed the BBC does need reforming, both in terms of content and funding.

[sinizter]

eldar said:

OnTheOverrun said:

eldar said:

Scary this. Winge at paying £14 quid a month for TV, radio, but happily pay £50 a month for SKY which isn't near to 3 times better.

You'll love it when Murdoch has his monopoly.

What's scary about people not liking being taxed and criminalised to watch a few bloody TV channels?

If it's as good as all the BBC lovers on here say, you wouldn't need to keep threatening people with prison to fund it. Sell it off and clear some debts, I'm tired of funding other people's hours in front of the idiot box.

You don't need a TV licence unless you watch live TV. Your choice.

TV licence is like any other tax. Pay it if its due, avoid it if you can. Evade it and you'll get criminalised, just like not taxing your car because you only do a couple of miles a day.

Agreed the BBC does need reforming, both in terms of content and funding.

The problem here is that I want to watch TV, not the BBC. I am not given an option to do so.

You might want to call it a tax, but until its legal standing is changed, it is not a tax - merely a way to fund the BBC.

[Dixie68]

I don't agree with the 'quality' arguments. Yes, 'Life on Earth' et al are very good, but so was 'Life After Man', (Discovery Channel), 'Yellowstone', (History Channel) and many others. How about 'Band of Brothers', (HBO)? There are many more.

But not everyone pays it anyway! I'd wager a lot of people who 'can't miss' an episode of Eastenders don't even have a TV licence.
Not one person I know who is lowly paid or on the dole has a TV licence - not one. They all get the letters but they ignore them and the few who have had an 'inspector' visit just didn't let them in. I even know of someone who is paid a great wage, has a lovely house and car who also doesn't have a licence as he says the BBC is 'crap'. He hasn't had a licence for over 15 years.
And I don't disagree with him, I only pay mine for an easy life.

[Parrot of Doom]

grumbledoak said:

Eric Mc said:

- but they do allow other voices too. Witness Andrew Neill's savaging of Dianne Abbot last week.

This will have been sanctioned, Andrew isn't that big, and the BBC haven't suddenly turned neutral. It wouldn't happen to Ed Balls, just as nothing like that was allowed for Blair or Brown.

You have to be joking. Andrew Marr infuriated Gordon Brown by asking him if he was medicated. Labour ministers and MPs regularly get a beating on QT, and just listen to John Humphries on Radio 4 interviewing MPs.