|
|
Post by boris on Sept 17, 2010 13:45:20 GMT
Boris makes a great point. Get rid of Radio Oxford and Jack FM can take over. Jerome would be happy to transfer Im sure. There are adequate replacements in all areas of life. Perhaps by Tony W's argument, if we need a standard bearer in every industry, the government should set up a supermarket funded by the taxpayer to keep standards high. Oh come on, that's a rubbish comeback Otto. Surely you can do better, or is your argument against the Beeb not actually based on any logic whatsoever? |
|
|
|
Post by m on Sept 17, 2010 14:36:07 GMT
Personally and alot of the views come down to personal taste I would say they do not offer a range of good quality programmes at all. Very occasionally they offer a quality program. But I feel every genre of program on any commercial or sky channel is superior to the BBC. Now I'm not saying every program is because there is alot or crap. And commercial channels will never beat a schedule of car booty, to buy or not to buy, helicopter heroes, cash in the attic followed by a crap evening schedule of eastenders news, watchdog, casualty, booby city, and some 1990 B-movie. But like I said it's personal taste. But some of the itv dramas channel 4 comedy, sky sports, sky documentaries far outway the scraps BBC pay for or make while they busily line their pockets. That sounds good, when's that on? |
|
|
|
Post by carefreeoufc on Sept 17, 2010 17:57:22 GMT
Booby city should be coming to you very shortly just putting the finishing touches to the contract now. Thanks to the generous licence payer i should have enough to buy oufc. And there was me complaining about the licence fee. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Hamworthy Yellow on Sept 19, 2010 12:07:14 GMT
The new "improved BBC iPlayer" is CRAP
|
|
|
|
Post by amarillo on Sept 19, 2010 12:33:52 GMT
Maybe I'm being naive but what services does it provide to the country that isn't also provided by alternative suppliers? Tv, radio, journalism, web services. All of these things are provided in various guises by a multitude of alternative suppliers. I see what you're saying but I don't think the equivalents provided by alternative commercial suppliers would ever be of the same quality. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony W on Sept 19, 2010 14:44:25 GMT
By listing those shows you've just helped prove my point. Okay so I don't watch all of them but Lie to me, Fringe, House and the Simpsons are perfect examples of TV shows the BBC are incapable of producing even with the TV licence payers money! It boils down to a simple argument over choice. I choose to have a TV and as such I must give £140 effectively directly to the BBC, but I don't watch the BBC or rather I could cope if I didn't. So if I was given the choice I should be given I'd chose to save my money and leave those who want to take advantage of the BBC services to willingly pay for it. Erm, yes - four American TV shows. Made by US network TV companies that operate on the sort of budgets that makes the license fee money look like peanuts! We could just give up and all watch American programmes all day - but I reckon that'd be a bit of a shame. And I don't work anywhere near the entertainment industry. Your second paragraph is of course completely logical and completely fair. Hard to argue against it. The only thing I'll say is that I would imagine that the vast majority of TV viewers - who spend most of the time watching American shows, X Factor, Big Brother and football - would go along with you. Make the BBC fee optional, and almost certainly enough people would opt not to pay it to kill the BBC - or at least push it out to the margins like PBS in the US. I just think that television and radio is one of those industries that - if you leave it purely to market forces like you advocate - ends up dumbing down and churning out exclusively popularist dross. As it does everywhere in the world except the UK (because of our weird funding scheme) and the US (where they have so much money and so many viewers that they occasionally produce something of genius amidst an awful, awful lot of crap). |
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Sept 19, 2010 18:31:59 GMT
I think the idea of funding the BBC through tax is the fairest way you can come up with. At the moment the licence fee unfairly stings people who do not watch the bbc. Fair enough a universtal tax would also target these people, but I think the amounts would be less if shared about amongst the whole population. Also, given more appropriately ringfenced government funding, and perhaps allowing the BBC to charge for online content, especially the iplayer or the ability to watch BBC HD etc, the BBC could raise capital on its own without it overly effecting the mainstream content it produces.
Alternatively you could look at re-appraising the remit of the bbc in relation to other channels, perhaps giving responsibility to other stations to provide some programming so a reduced licence fee could still produce the same quality of production at the BBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Otto on Sept 19, 2010 18:47:35 GMT
Boris makes a great point. Get rid of Radio Oxford and Jack FM can take over. Jerome would be happy to transfer Im sure. There are adequate replacements in all areas of life. Perhaps by Tony W's argument, if we need a standard bearer in every industry, the government should set up a supermarket funded by the taxpayer to keep standards high. Oh come on, that's a rubbish comeback Otto. Surely you can do better, or is your argument against the Beeb not actually based on any logic whatsoever? I dont like arguing. I dont think its good for the world, and creates a negative energy. |
|
|
|
Post by boris on Sept 19, 2010 21:01:25 GMT
Fair enough, can't disagree with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Otto on Sept 20, 2010 11:02:00 GMT
ps Im surprised you'd back a Poll Tax type tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by boris on Sept 20, 2010 11:18:05 GMT
It's not really though, is it? The poll tax was compulsory, whereas last time I checked owning a TV is optional (although that may change in the future). Obviously I would prefer it if all TV was free-to-view and the government spent millions of tax-payers money on providing good quality programming throughout, rather than spending it on Trident or stupid wars in the Middle East, but at the moment I'm quite happy for a licence fee type arrangement. The argument is whether or not the best use is made of the revenue so earned, and with the exception of BBC1 (and possibly Radio 2) I think it possibly is.
The jewel in the crown of the BBC is probably the World Service, which isn't replicated anywhere else and which is possibly the greatest triumph in public service broadcasting (and which I don't think has been mentioned upthread, although I could be wrong).
|
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Sept 20, 2010 11:24:11 GMT
I think we should keep the BBC the way it is but there are areas it could be trimmed and perhaps be more accountable for it's budgets. Also, I'd like to see them end their left wing bias in their media reporting for a start. It's only because it's a seperate tax and you have to put your hand in your pocket to pay it. At least you get something tangible in return. There's so much of your tax money which is wasted that you don't see, like the potato council for example. If they made you pay £1 per month for the potato council you'd be livid but because it comes out of your taxes and you don't see it, it doesn't bother you....
|
|
|
|
Post by boris on Sept 20, 2010 15:18:52 GMT
This "left-wing bias" crap about the BBC is probably one of the most uninformed myths that people keep coming out with. I guess it's put around by people with a right-wing bias. I would be considered as on the left politically, and in my opinion the BBC has a right-wing bias. What this probably shows is that it doesn't have any bias at all, and doesn't peddle any message that people on the left or right would identify with. It should be, and probably is, apolitical.
|
|
|
|
Post by amarillo on Sept 20, 2010 15:34:19 GMT
This "left-wing bias" crap about the BBC is probably one of the most uninformed myths that people keep coming out with. I guess it's put around by people with a right-wing bias. Totally agree |
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Otto on Sept 20, 2010 16:47:16 GMT
This "left-wing bias" crap about the BBC is probably one of the most uninformed myths that people keep coming out with. I guess it's put around by people with a right-wing bias. I would be considered as on the left politically, and in my opinion the BBC has a right-wing bias. What this probably shows is that it doesn't have any bias at all, and doesn't peddle any message that people on the left or right would identify with. It should be, and probably is, apolitical. Youre a left wing extremist though. It depends where you're putting the centre ground. You thought New Labour weren't lefties! ;-) A signifcant majority of those working for the BBC consider themselves to be left wing. There was a survey done about 12 months ago although dont ask me for the raw data or source :-( Id say that you would find it very hard to justify the debate but imagine if most people are left, it may unwittingly be more elft, although it works its darndest to be centrist / neutral and that should be enough for most. I always enjoy Newswatch. No other company in the world broadcasts its bad press so openly! |
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Otto on Sept 20, 2010 16:48:32 GMT
It's not really though, is it? The poll tax was compulsory, whereas last time I checked owning a TV is optional (although that may change in the future). Obviously I would prefer it if all TV was free-to-view and the government spent millions of tax-payers money on providing good quality programming throughout, rather than spending it on Trident or stupid wars in the Middle East, but at the moment I'm quite happy for a licence fee type arrangement. The argument is whether or not the best use is made of the revenue so earned, and with the exception of BBC1 (and possibly Radio 2) I think it possibly is.The jewel in the crown of the BBC is probably the World Service, which isn't replicated anywhere else and which is possibly the greatest triumph in public service broadcasting (and which I don't think has been mentioned upthread, although I could be wrong). Its not an argument. We already argued that point. Anyway I think you've realigned the debate from the original question. |
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Sept 20, 2010 20:50:18 GMT
This "left-wing bias" crap about the BBC is probably one of the most uninformed myths that people keep coming out with. I guess it's put around by people with a right-wing bias. I would be considered as on the left politically, and in my opinion the BBC has a right-wing bias. What this probably shows is that it doesn't have any bias at all, and doesn't peddle any message that people on the left or right would identify with. It should be, and probably is, apolitical. Oh come off it there's plenty of examples, even recently they made a big issue of William Hague's sexuality on the news, it was quite a scathing attack but it wasn't big news on any other channel. Any opportunity to defame a tory.... |
|
|
|
Post by amarillo on Sept 21, 2010 8:50:46 GMT
Thats a bizarre example. If there are plenty lets hear some more....
|
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Sept 21, 2010 11:06:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by headlesspnub on Sept 21, 2010 11:16:03 GMT
Wow, paper owned by Daily Mail in right wing shocker!
|
|
