Discussion
The Culture secretary Tessa Jowell published her proposals about changes to the BBC over the next ten years.
Surprise surprise the licence fee will continue over that period of time.
One piece of good news is that the board of governors is being replaced by trustees-while the day to day running of the corporation will now be done by a new executive board.
If the Board of Trustees understand it is their duty to ensure the BBC reports news in a balanced and impartial manner perhaps things will improve.
Surprise surprise the licence fee will continue over that period of time.
One piece of good news is that the board of governors is being replaced by trustees-while the day to day running of the corporation will now be done by a new executive board.
If the Board of Trustees understand it is their duty to ensure the BBC reports news in a balanced and impartial manner perhaps things will improve.
JMGS4 said:
I get the feeling that these changes are just to ensure that the BBC gets a more Labourleaning governing body. More control-freak fiddling by egotistical inferiority complexed socio-fascists
I suppose it all depends on who is appointed to the Board of Trustees and who does the appointing.
If anything the current Board of Govenors is a very left-biased structure anyway.
Something had to change. The old way of doing things was a disgrace and didnt make sense in the global sense of the BBC today. Might have worked 40 years ago, but these days it needs to be dynamic with something "overseeing" it to make sure that the public money is used effectively and efficiently.
No one would argue with the fact that the BBC is one badly run organisation. It is "our" money after all, and we need to see that we are getting value for it. Not sure if this is the best way of getting it, but something had to be done..... as JagLover says, we will know more once the selection procedure is started and who is appointed.....
Then again, it could be "jobs for the old boys"....
Something had to change. The old way of doing things was a disgrace and didnt make sense in the global sense of the BBC today. Might have worked 40 years ago, but these days it needs to be dynamic with something "overseeing" it to make sure that the public money is used effectively and efficiently.
No one would argue with the fact that the BBC is one badly run organisation. It is "our" money after all, and we need to see that we are getting value for it. Not sure if this is the best way of getting it, but something had to be done..... as JagLover says, we will know more once the selection procedure is started and who is appointed.....
Then again, it could be "jobs for the old boys"....
JagLover said:
I get the feeling that these changes are just to ensure that the BBC gets a more Labourleaning governing body. More control-freak fiddling by egotistical inferiority complexed socio-fascists
I suppose it all depends on who is appointed to the Board of Trustees and who does the appointing.
Former government ministers, following Labour's upcoming defeat most likely.
TeamD said:
What I fail to understand is "Why should I pay for the rest of the world to listen/watch the BBC on the internet?" WTF should I subsidise the rest of the world?
I suppose one point of view is that BBC services for the rest of the world such as the World service and their internet site are promoting Britain's image abroad and that is the justification for us all to pay for them.
TeamD said:
What I fail to understand is "Why should I pay for the rest of the world to listen/watch the BBC on the internet?" WTF should I subsidise the rest of the world?
Because we're English, it's our duty to subsidise the rest of the world
Editted to say: damn, I used my 1000 post on this silly joke, what a waste!
>> Edited by forever_driving on Thursday 3rd March 10:42
TeamD said:
What I fail to understand is "Why should I pay for the rest of the world to listen/watch the BBC on the internet?" WTF should I subsidise the rest of the world?
In essence you dont. The BBC obviously has a non-commercial part to it. No advertising and no profit making (cos we pay for it). I am not sure if its changed recently, but there are a couple of separate divisions / companies. Such a BBC Worldwie which are allowed to advertise and are allowed to make profit, as they are completely self-funding. Much of the content is from the BBC in the UK, but they have to pay for this and hence why many channels in the US for example are pay for use BBC ones...
So, to answer your question - you dont.
There is another argument which says that "why should my money assist others to profit internationally?" but thats a separate argument....
Its rather sad to see the changes being made will affect the type of programming being made, and not the technical standards.
Much daytime television today is shot with one professional cameraman on a Digibeta or DVCAM setup, no sound recordist, and an assistant Director with a PD-150/170 filling in the gaps. Its a disgracefully unprofessional way of making television, fuelled only by the need to keep budgets down.
When was the last time any of you saw a programme on any channel which technically was so poor that you wanted to turn over? I'm betting most of you have seen that in the last week or so.
Whats worse is that the BBC have long since sold off most of their training facilities, facilities which in times past ensured that this country had a strong competitive edge when it came to broadcasting and film making. This system has been replaced by work experience, short term contracts, long hours, and a system that has more applicants than jobs which ensures they have a steady flow of people who won't complain about their working rights.
The BBC board of governors didn't even include an Engineer - a sign of the times.
Thankfully there is still a niche market for people like me who refuse to work under such dire conditions, many programmes are still made by directors who insist on the cameraman-soundman-director structure (although it used to include an assistant as well), there are some people who still fight to maintain standards. Its just a pity that the politicians and accountants that now run the Beeb don't see technical standards as being important.
Much daytime television today is shot with one professional cameraman on a Digibeta or DVCAM setup, no sound recordist, and an assistant Director with a PD-150/170 filling in the gaps. Its a disgracefully unprofessional way of making television, fuelled only by the need to keep budgets down.
When was the last time any of you saw a programme on any channel which technically was so poor that you wanted to turn over? I'm betting most of you have seen that in the last week or so.
Whats worse is that the BBC have long since sold off most of their training facilities, facilities which in times past ensured that this country had a strong competitive edge when it came to broadcasting and film making. This system has been replaced by work experience, short term contracts, long hours, and a system that has more applicants than jobs which ensures they have a steady flow of people who won't complain about their working rights.
The BBC board of governors didn't even include an Engineer - a sign of the times.
Thankfully there is still a niche market for people like me who refuse to work under such dire conditions, many programmes are still made by directors who insist on the cameraman-soundman-director structure (although it used to include an assistant as well), there are some people who still fight to maintain standards. Its just a pity that the politicians and accountants that now run the Beeb don't see technical standards as being important.
off_again said:
So, to answer your question - you dont.
There is another argument which says that "why should my money assist others to profit internationally?" but thats a separate argument....
So why did the BBC News yesterday provide a breakdown of the license fee that included the internet side of the BBC? Since the website may be viewed/used all over the world, I am effectively subsidising those who do not pay the subscription that I do vis a vis the TV License.
TeamD said:
So why did the BBC News yesterday provide a breakdown of the license fee that included the internet side of the BBC? Since the website may be viewed/used all over the world, I am effectively subsidising those who do not pay the subscription that I do vis a vis the TV License.
Now you are just splitting hairs
Technically yes, a web site is available from all around the world. Just like PH for example. But our licence payers money goes to the production of information, material and services for our country. In that case, the website(s) has a specific UK focus. In fact there are in UK English (with international versions also available), with a UK slant and talk about UK subjects - just because the news is international doesnt mean anything.....
Some of the funding for the news site does come from profit making parts of the BBC - but the world service is paid for by you and I. The justification is that it originates and is broadcast (or published) in the UK - if it is received or read elsewhere then fine....
P.S. I do not work for the BBC and dont want to. I do see that the BBC is the single most inefficient and wasteful organisation that I have had the misfortune to deal with (more than central and local governments). Its full of people who spend their day trying to justify their jobs and talk about cuts to budgets..... DONT get me started on that one......
minornut said:
I wouldn't worry folks the TV licence is only for the next 10 years; after that I believe it will be funded by a PC licence from what I glanced at on the front of The Times today.
After the ten years are up it should switch to a subscription to fund it-then at least people would have a choice.
I'm not doing politics on this one. But it's interesting that so many people hate paying the licence fee, yet happily shell out £40pcm (nearly £500 a year) to Sky.
Anyway, let's hope they move on from 'Pro-Celebrity Detox Brat Idol Jungle Academy' and think of something that's actually entertaining.
Anyway, let's hope they move on from 'Pro-Celebrity Detox Brat Idol Jungle Academy' and think of something that's actually entertaining.
simpo two said:
But it's interesting that so many people hate paying the licence fee, yet happily shell out £40pcm (nearly £500 a year) to Sky.
used to but ditched it about 6 months ago. Makes you realise what absolute turd they put on the goglebox in the first place.
I watch less and less TV and really dont miss LivingTV+1 with its every-15-minutes rerun of "I'm a celebrity extreme fear academy make-over ever"..... Its quite a liberating experience and never intend to go back....
I might be wrong on this but I believe the funding for the BBC’s World Service is paid for from the Foreign Office. Still our moeny granted but the budget is to promote the UK. As far as I’m aware it’s very popular especially in countries were the news can be somewhat distorted.
>> Edited by c c on Thursday 3rd March 14:18
>> Edited by c c on Thursday 3rd March 14:18
TeamD said:
What I fail to understand is "Why should I pay for the rest of the world to listen/watch the BBC on the internet?" WTF should I subsidise the rest of the world?
until about 2 years ago the internet department, can't remember its name, was a profit making department within the BBC.
the BBC then bought some crock of sh*t media company for £4m which was a loss making outfit and lumped it with the internet services dept.
and now the combined outfit makes a loss.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff