BBC Funding

[ealingfox]

24 minutes ago, The Syrup said:

The problem is the TV licence is forced on people that don't watch any BBC content but may watch other live broadcast channels, whether that's ITV or a live match on BT sport. Because its a live broadcast it means they have to fork out for the licence. BBC are already dabbling in subscription services with BritBox, plus they own lots of commercial channels like UKTV and BBC America, make the TV licence a BBC subscription fee instead so folks don't have to pay for something they don't use.

 

I would wager that this is an incredibly small subset of people.

[The Syrup]

1 minute ago, twoleftfeet said:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/17/70_pc_tv_licensing_convictions_women/

I wonder how many caved at the door step and purchased a license.

 

 

 

The Capita TV licence salesmen that come to your door are on commission, plus have targets to meet. They will often use scare tactics to get people to pay for a licence they may not need, a common tactic being that you need a licence if you own a TV, which isn't true.

[The Syrup]

15 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

I would wager that this is an incredibly small subset of people.

Possibly, but a larger number of people are ditching TV channels completely and using on-demand services only. No TV licence required for Netflix, Amazon (not live footie matches), Now TV, BBC Radio, BBC Sounds, plus ITV hub and 4 OD (apart from the live channel part of these)

Edited 7 February 2020 by The Syrup

[Parafox]

On 06/02/2020 at 07:18, 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". 

 

 

On 06/02/2020 at 10:52, Parafox said:

Martin Keown?

 

22 hours ago, Line-X said:

 

 

Oy, I got that in before you!!!!! 

[Parafox]

I'm happy to pay the BBC either by subscription PPV or via a licence fee, mainly because their news coverage is of better quality and not as sensationalised as ITV has become. Also I find it extremely frustrating and irritating constantly having your concentration interrupted during a film or drama by ad breaks. For the same reason, I'd prefer to watch all live sport on BBC if that were possible.

As far as the OP goes, in my opinion it should not be a criminal offence not to have a TV licence, punishable by imprisonment in certain cases. I believe it should be at the most, a civil offence. 

[fleckneymike]

Just because we don't all use something doesn't mean it isn't important and worth protecting in the interest of the nation.

 

The BBC is an unbelievable resource, one held to account like no other. Yes the world may be changing and our viewing habits becoming more fragmented but that is no reason to scrap the BBC, it is a reason to ensure that it is well funded and can continue to meet the needs of the majority of the nation. 

 

The very fact you can watch BBC news output and think it biased in favour of left or right is brilliant for us all. The day you turn on a news channel and think there is no bias is the day we should all be afraid of.

[Kopfkino]

It has to change, some form of mixed system of subscriptions (with a mix of plans so some pay less) and government grants with a slimmed down service. 

 

Madness that people don't think that it's biased. When you have a heap of staff largely from similar backgrounds that then go on to exist in their own BBC bubble it's impossible not to end up with a bias

[Milo]

25 minutes ago, fleckneymike said:

Just because we don't all use something doesn't mean it isn't important and worth protecting in the interest of the nation.

 

The BBC is an unbelievable resource, one held to account like no other. Yes the world may be changing and our viewing habits becoming more fragmented but that is no reason to scrap the BBC, it is a reason to ensure that it is well funded and can continue to meet the needs of the majority of the nation. 

 

The very fact you can watch BBC news output and think it biased in favour of left or right is brilliant for us all. The day you turn on a news channel and think there is no bias is the day we should all be afraid of.

I think there are a few people missing the point a little. 
 

Why should people who don’t use it have to prop it up? And be criminalised if they don’t want to be forced to pay? 
 

 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

It has to change, some form of mixed system of subscriptions (with a mix of plans so some pay less) and government grants with a slimmed down service. 

 

Madness that people don't think that it's biased. When you have a heap of staff largely from similar backgrounds that then go on to exist in their own BBC bubble it's impossible not to end up with a bias

And die-hard Labour/Momentum followers would say the same for its treatment of Corbyn.

 

Most opinion of the Beeb being biased either way is based on opinion as opposed to provable fact.

[ealingfox]

9 minutes ago, Milo said:

I think there are a few people missing the point a little. 
 

Why should people who don’t use it have to prop it up? And be criminalised if they don’t want to be forced to pay? 
 

 

 

But you're not forced to pay. You dont have to buy a TV licence.

[Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And die-hard Labour/Momentum followers would say the same for its treatment of Corbyn.

 

Most opinion of the Beeb being biased either way is based on opinion as opposed to provable fact.

I didn't say anything about which way its bias swung, just think it's mad to cite that both sides think it's biased as objective evidence that it isn't biased when clearly the makeup of its staff means there's inevitably going to be some form of bias

 

But I wasn't just talking explicit political bias anyway. Implicit bias matters but also so does representativeness, and the perception of the BBC is one of having a white, middle class bias. 

[Milo]

13 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

But you're not forced to pay. You dont have to buy a TV licence.

Well you don’t exactly opt in to buying one, do you..! 
 

And they don’t make it particularly easy to refuse one. 
 

But yes, you’re correct. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I didn't say anything about which way its bias swung, just think it's mad to cite that both sides think it's biased as objective evidence that it isn't biased when clearly the makeup of its staff means there's inevitably going to be some form of bias

 

But I wasn't just talking explicit political bias anyway. Implicit bias matters but also so does representativeness, and the perception of the BBC is one of having a white, middle class bias. 

Perhaps it's a bit Golden Mean Fallacy, yeah, but personally I'd consider that to be more compelling evidence than information about the demographic makeup of the Beeb staff which may or may not have something to do with how they present their information.

 

But yes, I see what you mean, it's difficult to actually prove things either way.

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And die-hard Labour/Momentum followers would say the same for its treatment of Corbyn.

 

Most opinion of the Beeb being biased either way is based on opinion as opposed to provable fact.

It has a liberal remain bias, which allowed it to be anti Tory and anti Corbyn if it wanted to be 

 

The QT figures are absolutely shocking when you get into then in any depth. The biggest issue of our time and 95% then just openly had a pro-remain panel.

 

https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analysis-shows-systemic-bias-against-leave-supporters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/

 

https://joelrwrites.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/has-question-time-been-unfairly-dominated-by-remainers/

 

The amount of air time given to Heseltine, Campbell, Blair and Major was beyond belief at times, one occasion they even wheeled out David Mellor to tell us Brexit could ruin the opera for him - I can't even begin to imagine the depths plunged in the address book to arrive at that point.

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

It has a liberal remain bias, which allowed it to be anti Tory and anti Corbyn if it wanted to be 

 

The QT figures are absolutely shocking when you get into then in any depth. The biggest issue of our time and 95% then just openly had a pro-remain panel.

 

https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analysis-shows-systemic-bias-against-leave-supporters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/

 

https://joelrwrites.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/has-question-time-been-unfairly-dominated-by-remainers/

 

The amount of air time given to Heseltine, Campbell, Blair and Major was beyond belief at times, one occasion they even wheeled out David Mellor to tell us Brexit could ruin the opera for him - I can't even begin to imagine the depths plunged in the address book to arrive at that point.

 

...one subset of one issue (as important as it is believed to be) on two TV shows (as key as those shows might be when it comes to current events) is evidence that the entire institution is biased? The IEA article itself states that "Whilst on most metrics, there does not appear to be any substantial political or philosophical bias..." and also mentioned that the panels were in terms of most other ideologies well-balanced.

 

I'm not denying that there may well be bias in particular areas from particular people, but to paint the entire organisation with one brush doesn't seem to be accurate.

 

(Would be interesting to see how the panels compare with audiences in terms of beliefs for those QT episodes, doubt that info is easy to find though.)

[bovril]

I think it's slightly harder to talk about BBC bias when it comes to Brexit as almost anybody who disagrees with the government's policy is labelled as a biased 'remainer', despite most experts from the UK and and abroad agreeing that the government's current approach to EU trade will lead to economic insecurity and job losses.

If somebody on QT predicts that trading on WTO terms will negatively affect industry, are they a 'remainer'?

Edited 7 February 2020 by bovril

[Kopfkino]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps it's a bit Golden Mean Fallacy, yeah, but personally I'd consider that to be more compelling evidence than information about the demographic makeup of the Beeb staff which may or may not have something to do with how they present their information.

 

But yes, I see what you mean, it's difficult to actually prove things either way.

But its the whole culture, you're just looking at it from a news point of view. I'm merely saying that the organisation has a bias because I think that recruiting a huge chunk of people all from similar backgrounds to co-exist in the same ecosystem is a breeding ground for group think and affects the decisions its makes across everything. Which is why the perception of the BBC is one of being for the white middle classes. And why when the research was done minorities felt overlooked and poorer people felt stigmatised. 

 

Just presenting any two opposite views isn't evidence of no bias. Actually, the fact the BBC thinks its sufficient to just present two opposing views is a problem for its ability to be a public service broadcaster. 

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, bovril said:

I think it's slightly harder to talk about BBC bias when it comes to Brexit as almost anybody who disagrees with the government's policy is labelled as a biased 'remainer', despite most experts from the UK and and abroad agreeing that the government's current approach to EU trade will lead to economic insecurity and job losses.

If somebody on QT predicts that trading on WTO terms will negatively affect industry, are they a 'remainer'?

No. They are a Remainer if they voted to stay and the EU and still believe that. 

 

Do you think a publicly funded broadcaster is treating an issue with neutrality when 3 out of 80 of its shows represent the majority of public opinion and 77 out of 80 of its shows go with the minority? (I mean those figures include Tory leavers who voted Remain as well)

 

If you don't think the BBC needs to be impartial on this then fair enough, but it's just laughable if anyone thinks they actually are given the evidence in front of us.

[ealingfox]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

No. They are a Remainer if they voted to stay and the EU and still believe that. 

 

Do you think a publicly funded broadcaster is treating an issue with neutrality when 3 out of 80 of its shows represent the majority of public opinion and 77 out of 80 of its shows go with the minority? (I mean those figures include Tory leavers who voted Remain as well)

 

If you don't think the BBC needs to be impartial on this then fair enough, but it's just laughable if anyone thinks they actually are given the evidence in front of us.

 

It was a secret ballot, so how have they designated? Did they survey each and every person they've included in those statistics? Or did they just assume?

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

But its the whole culture, you're just looking at it from a news point of view. I'm merely saying that the organisation has a bias because I think that recruiting a huge chunk of people all from similar backgrounds to co-exist in the same ecosystem is a breeding ground for group think and affects the decisions its makes across everything. Which is why the perception of the BBC is one of being for the white middle classes. And why when the research was done minorities felt overlooked and poorer people felt stigmatised. 

 

Just presenting any two opposite views isn't evidence of no bias. Actually, the fact the BBC thinks its sufficient to just present two opposing views is a problem for its ability to be a public service broadcaster. 

That's fair enough, and while it's a compelling point I don't agree as I don't think such a thing as the bolded can be conclusively proven...but I do see where you're coming from.

 

TBH the Beeb presenting two opposite views and then treating them with equal weight on an issue like climate change is something that has irked me too, so fair point there.

[Beliall]

I dont think any television service should have a legally binding licence requirement in order to view. media should be freely available to all, to a point. the should self fund with ads like the rest or move to subscription. but im bias because i dont watch the BBC and i steal football matches. which makes me a sponging ****

[twoleftfeet]

 So to watch live football on NOW TV I must pay £5.99 for the match pay pass ok that is reasonable if look in terms of a cost of attending a live game, but to do this I have to fund the BBC for the month to the tune of £12.57.  

Edited 7 February 2020 by twoleftfeet
to suggest that paying the license fee is associated with watch the game on NOW TV not attending the game live in person.

[ealingfox]

7 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

 So to watch live football on NOW TV I must pay £5.99 for the match pay pass ok that is reasonable if look in terms of a cost of attending a live game but to do this I have to fund the BBC for the month to the tune of £12.57.  

 

Why do you have to pay the BBC £12.57 to attend a live game? Do they sell tickets?

[fleckneymike]

 

 

9 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

 So to watch live football on NOW TV I must pay £5.99 for the match pay pass ok that is reasonable if look in terms of a cost of attending a live game but to do this I have to fund the BBC for the month to the tune of £12.57.  

Now TV are ripping you off. For £12.57 you can listen to live radio commentary, read a match report, watch highlights and analysis of every match for a month. Bargain.

[FoxesDeb]

13 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

 So to watch live football on NOW TV I must pay £5.99 for the match pay pass ok that is reasonable if look in terms of a cost of attending a live game, but to do this I have to fund the BBC for the month to the tune of £12.57.  

£5.99 for what, 120 minutes?