BBC Funding

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

You’re not forced to pay for them!

Oh yes, how much of my 44p a day should I get back

[kenny]

1 minute ago, Dunge said:

The BBC is one of the best things we have in this country. From programs to news to website to national and local radio, for me it’s of great value to this country, let alone what it can sell abroad. It doesn’t get everything right, and there should always be room with it to adjust and consider its politics and its output. But that’s part of it - by being publicly funded it has to do so.

 

Nadine Dorries can shove it.

For me the big mistake it makes is trying to compete with the other commercial channels. They should reduce salaries and focus on giving opportunities to up and coming acting and presenting talent.

 

They could save millions by getting rid of lineker and all the rest, then giving airtime to new presenters. If they are rubbish, then drop them after a year and try someone else. Instead they offer massive salaries to stop sky or itv nicking them once their profile builds.

 

[Dunge]

5 minutes ago, kenny said:

For me the big mistake it makes is trying to compete with the other commercial channels. They should reduce salaries and focus on giving opportunities to up and coming acting and presenting talent.

 

They could save millions by getting rid of lineker and all the rest, then giving airtime to new presenters. If they are rubbish, then drop them after a year and try someone else. Instead they offer massive salaries to stop sky or itv nicking them once their profile builds.

 

I think they’d be in danger of making things look cheap by doing that. The problem to me isn’t that the BBC is doing anything major wrong, it’s that there are some horrible people out there with a grudge against it.

 

Politics wise, I always think Britain’s at its greatest when it’s challenging and rejecting extreme views. The BBC is the single best enabler of people to do that.

[kenny]

Just now, Dunge said:

I think they’d be in danger of making things look cheap by doing that. The problem to me isn’t that the BBC is doing anything major wrong, it’s that there are some horrible people out there with a grudge against it.

 

Politics wise, I always think Britain’s at its greatest when it’s challenging and rejecting extreme views. The BBC is the single best enabler of people to do that.

Some of its dramas look cheap anyway but have their charm.

 

Motd would be the same show with a £100k presenter.

 

It would be even better if they could afford ex premier League morons like Jenas and we got knowledgeable ex players from the lower leagues.

 

The same should go for radio presenters and other TV shows. The issue the BBC has is that the commercial stations are better at bringing talent through meaning the BBC clings on to its 'stars'

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

Just popping in here to say I think Nadine Dorries is the absolute pits.

[Fox1norfolk]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I think they’d be in danger of making things look cheap by doing that. The problem to me isn’t that the BBC is doing anything major wrong, it’s that there are some horrible people out there with a grudge against it.

 

Politics wise, I always think Britain’s at its greatest when it’s challenging and rejecting extreme views. The BBC is the single best enabler of people to do that.

Given the cost of the licence fee what do they actually deliver today ?  

 

I remember when when they had live Test Cricket, horse racing, football, rugby, boxing, and other live sports. Now most of these have been lost to other channels because the BBC will not pay. So where exactly does the £3.5 billion go ? Women's football and rugby is cheap transmission with very low viewing figures.

 

Simply look at the list of programs every week for example BBC2 and you will discover around 90% are repeats, so how can they justify increasing the licence fee when we have already paid for the original production of these programs

[Dunge]

17 minutes ago, Fox1norfolk said:

Given the cost of the licence fee what do they actually deliver today ?  

 

I remember when when they had live Test Cricket, horse racing, football, rugby, boxing, and other live sports. Now most of these have been lost to other channels because the BBC will not pay. So where exactly does the £3.5 billion go ? Women's football and rugby is cheap transmission with very low viewing figures.

 

Simply look at the list of programs every week for example BBC2 and you will discover around 90% are repeats, so how can they justify increasing the licence fee when we have already paid for the original production of these programs

News

Political discussion

National radio

Local radio

Website

Entertainment

Drama

Comedy

And yes, familiarity and a base for people. Most of the time we can go on with our lives, but sometimes something big happens, news or event. At that time, the nations turns to the BBC.

 

Sports are expensive. If you think any of them should be on the BBC for greater exposure, which I would entirely agree with, then I suggest you go and give the cricketing authorities a massive slap and explain to them that they can have all the money in the world but lack of exposure is what’s really costing them youth interest.

[Foxdiamond]

38 minutes ago, Fox1norfolk said:

Given the cost of the licence fee what do they actually deliver today ?  

 

I remember when when they had live Test Cricket, horse racing, football, rugby, boxing, and other live sports. Now most of these have been lost to other channels because the BBC will not pay. So where exactly does the £3.5 billion go ? Women's football and rugby is cheap transmission with very low viewing figures.

 

Simply look at the list of programs every week for example BBC2 and you will discover around 90% are repeats, so how can they justify increasing the licence fee when we have already paid for the original production of these programs

Our FA Cup final was free air on BBC. The channel had more viewers than the subscription services. 

[SexyGammonFox]

26 minutes ago, Dunge said:

News

Political discussion

National radio

Local radio

Website

Entertainment

Drama

Comedy

And yes, familiarity and a base for people. Most of the time we can go on with our lives, but sometimes something big happens, news or event. At that time, the nations turns to the BBC.

 

Sports are expensive. If you think any of them should be on the BBC for greater exposure, which I would entirely agree with, then I suggest you go and give the cricketing authorities a massive slap and explain to them that they can have all the money in the world but lack of exposure is what’s really costing them youth interest.

Name me some new *hilarious* non panel show comedy the BBC has put out in the last 5 years.

[Dunge]

12 minutes ago, SexyGammonFox said:

Name me some new *hilarious* non panel show comedy the BBC has put out in the last 5 years.

1. That is a subjective question.

2. Subjectively: Ghosts; The Goes Wrong Show; to a lesser extent but I still find it funny: Not Going Out.

 

Edit: Back to you: Name me a better broadcaster, particularly around big events, and why.

Edited 16 January 2022 by Dunge

[SexyGammonFox]

Just now, Dunge said:

1. That is a subjective question.

2. Subjectively: Ghosts; The Goes Wrong Show; to a lesser extent but I still find it funny: Not Going Out.

I'll give you ghosts but the horrible histories crew can't exactly be described as *new*.

 

I've not even heard of goes wrong. And not going out definitely isn't funny anymore.

[danny.]

Feels like it’s had it’s day. A lot of younger people don’t watch live TV at all. I’m by no means young and haven’t had a license for at least five years. 

 

Seems a bit mad that you have to pay the BBC ~£150 a year to watch YouTube live streams if you don’t use BBC services at all. 

[SexyGammonFox]

7 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Name me a better broadcaster, particularly around big events

Name me another broadcaster I need to pay even if I don't want to watch their programming?

[The whole world smiles]

31 minutes ago, SexyGammonFox said:

Name me some new *hilarious* non panel show comedy the BBC has put out in the last 5 years.

This country. 

People just do nothing. 

 

Both brilliant in my opinion. 

[SexyGammonFox]

4 minutes ago, The whole world smiles said:

This country. 

People just do nothing. 

 

Both brilliant in my opinion. 

People do nothing started 10 years ago. This country scrapes in by the skin of its teeth.

[ALC Fox]

47 minutes ago, SexyGammonFox said:

Name me some new *hilarious* non panel show comedy the BBC has put out in the last 5 years.

Man Like Mobeen - Watched it for the first time last week and watched it all in two days. Absolutely superb programme. Hilarious, hard-hitting, dramatic, and also provided decent social commentary.

 

Mum - A really gentle, heartfelt, emotional comedy with some genuine laugh out loud moments and extremely memorable characters.

 

This Country - Daisy May Cooper's big break. Cringey, relatable, offbeat, daft and really, really funny.

 

I really liked Ghosts too, which I found funny but probably not side-splittingly hilarious.

[pleatout]

35 minutes ago, SexyGammonFox said:

Name me another broadcaster I need to pay even if I don't want to watch their programming?

Indirectly, assuming you are a consumer of something that has been advertised - ITV, Sky

[Dunge]

44 minutes ago, SexyGammonFox said:

Name me another broadcaster I need to pay even if I don't want to watch their programming?

I’ve never heard of that one, but with a name that long I doubt it’ll catch on.

 

And anyway, I’m perfectly happy with you paying for my programming. Just like you must enjoy certain public services paid for with my taxes.

[Dunge]

55 minutes ago, SexyGammonFox said:

I'll give you ghosts but the horrible histories crew can't exactly be described as *new*.

 

I've not even heard of goes wrong. And not going out definitely isn't funny anymore.

You know, thinking about it, you may be right. Great argument for increasing the license fee and giving more money to new, aspiring comedy and arts. 

[leicsmac]

On 06/02/2020 at 21:26, leicsmac said:

 

 

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.

This is still true.

 

There needs to be one source of news out there that isn't beholden to commercial interest for this exact reason. Especially in this era of digital information flow where the "truth" seems increasingly to belong to the highest bidder or the speaker with the biggest and most charismatic mouth.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

Be interesting to see how this goes, I guess the BBC will just introduce adverts like every other channel but how else will the output be affected. Or will it become a purely on-demand service, and they can scrap all the filler garbage to just focus on the shows and content that most people are actually interested in

 

The license fee has always bothered me purely because it feels like you must have it even if you don't watch terrestrial TV. iPlayer also bothers me, because they remove shows after just a few weeks - All 4 has box sets of comedies etc spanning decades, all free to watch, so why can't I watch BBC-funded shows on iPlayer whenever I want? The taxpayer has paid for it, feels like it is their duty to maintain the rights to these shows

[Jon the Hat]

I personally think the BBC funding model should be something like:

1) Defined core service - News, Current affairs, local radio, world service radio - Government funded

2) Everything else they can sell - subscription service

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

I personally think the BBC funding model should be something like:

1) Defined core service - News, Current affairs, local radio, world service radio - Government funded

2) Everything else they can sell - subscription service

If it really came down to it, then I'd settle for that - with the binding, utterly binding proviso that funding for the first one would be ring fenced.

 

I would hope there might be something for the documentaries and educational programming they do as well, though.

[Beliall]

I have been against the tv licence for as long as i had to pay it. but if the tories want to kill it, it must be doing something right. and my experience of politicians is if they want to do something, its for their benefit, not ours. better we keep the BBC than have it replaced by whatever it is they have in mind

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If it really came down to it, then I'd settle for that - with the binding, utterly binding proviso that funding for the first one would be ring fenced.

 

I would hope there might be something for the documentaries and educational programming they do as well, though.

I think a BBC documentary channel would be its best selling.