Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Similar to the ABC here in Australia, although it’s government funded with no licence fee. However I would be more than happy to pay any fee necessary to keep an unbiased news agency that we know hasn’t been paid off by advertising or influenced at the top level by multi billionaires with an agenda to strike fear into the masses - I’m looking at you Rupert. 
As the old saying goes, you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.

Edited by Aus Fox
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the BBC. Read their news site everyday. However, I don't think they should be paying presenters stupid amounts of money. I like Lineker, but his wages are ridiculous for hosting a show that people would tune into even if a monkey in a suit was hosting it. 

 

I just don't understand why they try and keep expensive people around, it's time to adapt surely and move more towards being a stepping stone for up and coming "stars". 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Yeah exactly.

 

Its crazy how many people say the BBC are run by the loony left / lib met elite / right wing press when a story the BBC report doesnt align specifically to that viewer's political ideology.

 

They are as impartial as you are going to get in a news source.

But why does it have to cost nearly £4 Billion (I’ll say that again... £4 Billion) every year to provide a relatively unbiased news platform?  

 

If the BBC is a public service then fine, but don’t spunk squillions on crappy entertainment, trying to compete with self funded channels. 
 

Grotesque, bloated and massively over-funded.
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Milo said:

But why does it have to cost nearly £4 Billion (I’ll say that again... £4 Billion) every year to provide a relatively unbiased news platform?  

 

If the BBC is a public service then fine, but don’t spunk squillions on crappy entertainment, trying to compete with self funded channels. 
 

Grotesque, bloated and massively over-funded.
 

The bbc is there for all though. Its mission statement is "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain"

 

Who gets to choose what's a waste of money? Is MOTD fine but say Dr Who not? Why? Is the bbc not for football fans as much as it is scifi fans or families? Or should it just become a news and political programme channel? 

 

I'm mean sure it has its faults and it pisses money up the wall on stuff. But I won't criticise it for any programme it makes just because I don't like it, as others do. And often a lot of it entertainment shows make it a lot of money, by either selling the broadcast rights abroad or selling the format.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Milo said:

But why does it have to cost nearly £4 Billion (I’ll say that again... £4 Billion) every year to provide a relatively unbiased news platform?  

 

If the BBC is a public service then fine, but don’t spunk squillions on crappy entertainment, trying to compete with self funded channels. 
 

Grotesque, bloated and massively over-funded.
 

But they do that because they are measured, rightly or wrongly / consciously or unconsciously by other media sources, the public and the government on how many viewers they get so they have to mix it up with 'dross' to up the average audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I like the BBC. Read their news site everyday. However, I don't think they should be paying presenters stupid amounts of money. I like Lineker, but his wages are ridiculous for hosting a show that people would tune into even if a monkey in a suit was hosting it. 

 

I just don't understand why they try and keep expensive people around, it's time to adapt surely and move more towards being a stepping stone for up and coming "stars". 

 

Absolutely agree with this, it does not need highly paid celebrities to front their programmes, when they get 'too big" (for their boots) let them move on.

There's far too much celebratising (my word) of people in there doing standard media roles.

Media and the arts seems to me to be one of the biggest attractions for young people leaving school and going to university/colleges open up the roles to these people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

The bbc is there for all though. Its mission statement is "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain"

 

Who gets to choose what's a waste of money? Is MOTD fine but say Dr Who not? Why? Is the bbc not for football fans as much as it is scifi fans or families? Or should it just become a news and political programme channel? 

 

I'm mean sure it has its faults and it pisses money up the wall on stuff. But I won't criticise it for any programme it makes just because I don't like it, as others do. And often a lot of it entertainment shows make it a lot of money, by either selling the broadcast rights abroad or selling the format.

I’m not criticising programmes I don’t like. 
 

I think the BBC is funded in an unfair way and is relatively unaccountable. Maybe there are a few moans and Government questions every few years, but generally speaking they will still get the huge handout the following year, without any repercussions. 
 

As for the question of who gets to choose what’s good and bad, well, in this day and age, we do. I can choose what I want to watch, how and where...and pay for it as I see fit. 
 

The BBC model of a blanket fee whether you use the service or not is outdated. 
 

I didn’t sign up to any BBC contract, and I don’t want to watch any BBC channels, but if I refuse to pay for it I will be fined, imprisoned and have a criminal record. It nuts. 
 

 

Oh, and now Britbox...so BBC programmes that were publicly funded are now available to watch again, for a fee, obviously, via the BBC Britbox service 🙄

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I really like the BBCs output.

If you compare it to the ITV's output it just seems immensely superior and I feel that it improves the quality of of channels that have to compete with it.  Just imagine our TV channels without it.  They'd all be like there US counterparts :nigel:

 

I do think that it shouldn't be a criminal offence to not pay the BBC licence fee though.

Edited by foxes1988
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Milo said:

But why does it have to cost nearly £4 Billion (I’ll say that again... £4 Billion) every year to provide a relatively unbiased news platform?  

 

If the BBC is a public service then fine, but don’t spunk squillions on crappy entertainment, trying to compete with self funded channels. 
 

Grotesque, bloated and massively over-funded.
 

It doesn't cost 4 billion for just an unbiased news platform though does it.  BBC is much more then just a news channel.

 

15 minutes ago, Milo said:

I’m not criticising programmes I don’t like. 
 

I think the BBC is funded in an unfair way and is relatively unaccountable. Maybe there are a few moans and Government questions every few years, but generally speaking they will still get the huge handout the following year, without any repercussions. 
 

As for the question of who gets to choose what’s good and bad, well, in this day and age, we do. I can choose what I want to watch, how and where...and pay for it as I see fit. 
 

The BBC model of a blanket fee whether you use the service or not is outdated. 
 

I didn’t sign up to any BBC contract, and I don’t want to watch any BBC channels, but if I refuse to pay for it I will be fined, imprisoned and have a criminal record. It nuts. 
 

 

Oh, and now Britbox...so BBC programmes that were publicly funded are now available to watch again, for a fee, obviously, via the BBC Britbox service 🙄

 

Really?  All you ever hear is people moaning about the BBC because its publicly funded. For me at least it gets much more criticism then commercial profit driven channels.

 

I would agree that the service needs to adapt to the times and some big changes will be needed over the next decade but I think its telling that the rest of the world admires the BBC and that most british tv sold to other countries comes from the BBC

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

It doesn't cost 4 billion for just an unbiased news platform though does it.  BBC is much more then just a news channel.

 

Really?  All you ever hear is people moaning about the BBC because its publicly funded. For me at least it gets much more criticism then commercial profit driven channels.

 

I would agree that the service needs to adapt to the times and some big changes will be needed over the next decade but I think its telling that the rest of the world admires the BBC and that most british tv sold to other countries comes from the BBC

Please read the previous bits of the thread. 
 

I wasn’t saying that it cost £4 billion a year for just a news channel. 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of mail I get sent from TV licensing saying I'm breaking the law for not having a licence must cost a fortune. Cancelled the licence (legally) ages ago but get plenty of crap sent by Capita, plus the salesmen knocking at the door. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the BBC and am happy to pay a license fee. 

 

The price needs to come down, the BBC needs to streamline and people need to be left the **** alone if they opt to not pay it. 

 

I agree with the wages thing. It would be a brilliant vehicle to allow young talent to come through. Spend the money training up the next generation of talent and let the high earners leave when they want to maximise their income. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Innovindil said:

I like the BBC. Read their news site everyday. However, I don't think they should be paying presenters stupid amounts of money. I like Lineker, but his wages are ridiculous for hosting a show that people would tune into even if a monkey in a suit was hosting it. 

 

I just don't understand why they try and keep expensive people around, it's time to adapt surely and move more towards being a stepping stone for up and coming "stars". 

 

Martin Keown?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

So torn on this. I watch more of the Beeb than any other channel but it's becoming harder and harder to defend it.

 

The news coverage is fantastic and shows like Panorama, Marr, Neil, QT are needed for the public discourse. Some of the documentary series are absolutely incredible. 

 

The bias in politics is a problem, it has a liberal bias it is almost impossible to avoid given its employees will be overwhelmingly city based and younger than the whole. Its certainly been to anti-Brexit since the referendum and arguments can also be made for it being anti-Corbyn. Sorting that out is imperative or we just end up with another C4. They've got to so careful to politically balance comedy as well - something it's completely failed on.

 

Costs need to be scaled back - I don't seriously believe people wouldn't watch MOTD if Jason Muhammed did it rather than Lineker, they also don't need 1000 people to cover events like Glastonbury. 

 

Moving to a subscription service is inevitable though - it's absurd to have an effective tax on a TV channel to fund and the biggest problem that comes from that is if income is guaranteed they'll never be a desire to sort problems out.

 

I'd certainly still pay it, but change is long overdue. 

Edited by MattP
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much choice now with regards to what people can watch and how people can access their news that the Licence fee is becoming more and more irrelivent. the BBC needs to be more streamlined and cost effective in an age of Netflix and Amazon.

I for one would welcome the BBC becoming fully commercialized and the abolishment of the Licence fee. it would generate more money for the ailing BBC and help millions of families out of debt. it is a disgrace that i have to pay a fee to the BBC even if i don't use any of their services.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the BBC will be dissolved within the next decade. I don’t understand the appeal of state media, amazing really that people haven’t cottoned onto it being a very mild way of manipulating your population.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SheppyFox said:

Hopefully the BBC will be dissolved within the next decade. I don’t understand the appeal of state media, amazing really that people haven’t cottoned onto it being a very mild way of manipulating your population.

...and commercial media do not do this to an even greater degree than the Beeb does?

 

And those commercial media aren't accountable to the market as many people say they are simply because as long as they tell people what they want to hear (as opposed to what really is) they will continue to sell. Truth is hardly the biggest selling point.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The wages linked to MOTD presenters are ridiculous, but I guess they have to match the likes of BT and Sky

Lineker : £1.7M pa

Shearer £445K 

Jenas : £215K

Wrighty : £210K

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48839428

 

BBC is trying to be everything to everybody, making it way too bloated. I don't pay for a licence, but do listen to BBC radio (5live and 6 music). You don't need a licence to listen to BBC radio or BBC sounds, yet the licence funds them. 

 

TV licence comes from a time when there was only a couple of channels. Totally outdated for the streaming, on-demand era we're in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Innovindil said:

 for hosting a show that people would tune into even if a monkey in a suit was hosting it. 

2_IMG_6443PNG.png.2ea1394763d6f5b38263b442a0e6a434.png

 

Regarding the future funding of the BBC, abolition of the licence fee will result in complete disembowelment. It would be annihilated by the competition as a subscription service and a move pursue licence payments through the civil courts would be costly and cumbersome. It will cease to exist as a public service broadcaster and continue as a marginal and emasculated streaming service. 

 

Irrespective of what anyone thinks of the editorial policy or governance, I find it very concerning amid the current social media moral milieu, as we hurtle headlong into the stream, the role of traditional television will be both marginalised and compromised. The demise of print and TV journalism, will inevitably fuel alt-sources, fake news and populist subjectivity. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Line-X said:

2_IMG_6443PNG.png.2ea1394763d6f5b38263b442a0e6a434.png

 

Regarding the future funding of the BBC, abolition of the licence fee will result in complete disembowelment. It would be annihilated by the competition as a subscription service and a move pursue licence payments through the civil courts would be costly and cumbersome. It will cease to exist as a public service broadcaster and continue as a marginal and emasculated streaming service. 

 

Irrespective of what anyone thinks of the editorial policy or governance, I find it very concerning amid the current social media moral milieu, as we hurtle headlong into the stream, the role of traditional television will be both marginalised and compromised. The demise of print and TV journalism, will inevitably fuel alt-sources, fake news and populist subjectivity. 

Spot on - and it's doing so already and the damage it is causing is apparent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...